Comment: Perhaps we could clarify the eligibility of a candidate’s list and disallow certain people after an evaluation.
Comment: I think it would be impossible to codify and legislate those kinds of ties. The depths of connection would be totally invisible. The presence of at least one blind letter chosen by the chair should be present to show if there’s a disparity between the candidate’s choices and the chair’s.
Comment: In a narrow field it’s hard to avoid past collaborators.
Q: Is a negative or uninformative external review a deal breaker?
A: No. It is just one piece of information.
Comment: Within the arts we have one of two approaches: either the PhD or the MFA. I could foresee the possibility of a chair picking a reviewer with a strong bias toward publication to review a practicing artist. There needs to be a check on the chair’s choices.
Comment: At some big institutions the candidate submits a “do not contact” list as well. That might help.
Comment: Please give the Rank and Tenure Committee something that we can have more faith in than what is in place right now.
-The discussion was tabled for the next meeting.
III. Reduced Teaching Load / Core Curriculum / Faculty Handbook Subcommittees – Matt Dillon
Matt Dillon proposed a 5-year plan to restructure the curriculum. It would include a plan to reduce class offerings by 20% by switching to a curriculum of 4 courses at 4 units per semester. This 4/4 plan would require a means of justifying the extra 1 credit through labs, interdisciplinary courses, and the restructuring of upper vs. lower division courses. Revision of the Core Curriculum would focus on creating a more significant Core, not a larger Core. Possible options include infusing the freshmen writing requirement throughout the curriculum and creating a more flexible core of options rather than requirements. The implementation of changes would be reached in 2011, the University Centennial.
IV. Evaluation of Administrators – Academic Vice President Ernest Rose
AVP Rose discussed the evaluation of administrators document approved by the Faculty Senate. Neither he nor the President are in favor of the model proposed by the Senate. AVP Rose described his ideal evaluation process as a learning experience, with stated goals and objectives along with assessment of performance. The “360 Review” is already in place for the Vice-Presidents. It is a comprehensive evaluation process that involves in-depth interviewing of a selected group of faculty and staff who interact with the V-P by an outside facilitator. The 360 review takes place every five years.
- Discussion:
Q: In the 360 process what role does the faculty play and what role would you like us to play?
A: I am not suggesting using 360 for deans but if we were using it on deans, we would want a representative sampling of faculty and staff in that school to participate in the process. It would be a very comprehensive view of people who interact with the dean.
Q: You indicated that one of the components would be faculty involved with setting goals for their dean. In practice that’s unrealistic. Deans run the show; faculty don’t negotiate with deans. These are not democracies.
A: You’re right in some cases they are not democratic. That is why the AVP can prescribe a program to the deans. Personally I would be disappointed if deans did not participate in setting goals for me.
Q: You would be putting into place a new system along with a way to inform deans of it?
A: Yes, there would need to be some training involved.
Q: When students evaluate faculty, they are all in contact with us, not just a representative few.
A: It’s a representative sampling only if the 360 process is used. I’m open to discussing using all faculty who are interested. I’m leaning toward something more inclusive.
Q: If you took charge of the evaluation of deans like the Presidents does of Vice-Presidents, where’s the transparency? We hadn’t heard of the 360 review for V-Ps until now. It hasn’t been transparent. What are your objections to the model proposed by the faculty?
A: Neither the President nor I could see a learning component integrated into the proposed faculty model. There is no way to analyze a quantitative response. I appreciate your concerns but we serve at the pleasure of the President and he needs to be comfortable with the evaluation process.
Comment: What prompted the proposed faculty model is the need to start the conversation. If your route begins the conversation, it’s a start.
Comment: It’s a useful phrase to state we “serve at the pleasure of the President” but the object is that we “serve the university at the pleasure of the President.” What’s behind our proposal is that there is no input in evaluation of administrators’ service to the university. We’re looking for mechanisms to create that input.
A: I’m in favor of that. We need to find a mechanism that we all agree upon and find fair.
Q: There needs to be some way for all faculty to give input on how we feel our dean is performing. If the proposed Senate document doesn’t meet our needs, what would?
A: We need to start with performance indicators. I have ideas on what I think is fair and you as faculty need to decide upon indicators. Collaboratively we’ll create a review process.
Q: Once these standards are put in place, will faculty be allowed to weigh in on how these indicators were met?
A: Of course. It doesn’t make sense to just involve the faculty in the first part of the process.
-A motion was raised to establish a working group with joint representation to move the evaluation process forward. It was seconded and approved with one opposed and two abstentions.
V. Facilities Review and Hannon Library – Hannon Library Design Committee (Rick Garcia, Tisa Jimenez), DMJM (Michael Mann, Charlene Dekker, Tony Mason)
The Facilities Review architects and Hannon Library Design Team reported on the current progress of the facilities review and library building planning. They are in the information gathering phase. A questionnaire was distributed among the Senate to elicit comments and opinions.
- Discussion
Q: What do you want to know most?
A: On facilities assessment, the questions are broad. A lot of our concerns are about establishing priorities.
Q: What is our timeline for responding to the questionnaire?
A: The information gathering process for the facilities review is going on through the Fall with a great deal of work being done over the summer. The library project is on a tighter schedule and we would like responses on the library questions by the end of April. A question I have for you is how would you see the library as a teaching place?
Comment: We need to think of it as a learning place that facilitates teaching.
Comment: I hope that the building is significantly large enough so that we don’t head back to Iron Mountain. We are blessed with a good acquisition budget and we want the library to grow with our academic programs.
Comment: I’d like to see as much stacks space as possible to allow students to experience the serendipity of finding materials by browsing the stacks. Students need the opportunity to experience how knowledge is organized. Accessibility is important. The library also should be attractive enough to make students want to be there.
Comment: It would be easy to overemphasize space given to the technological. Technology will change; the library is not going to be a unique physical space in which to consult technological resources. That’s already an outdated concept. The one unique thing that the library has to offer is actually its older, traditional role. The future is in preserving the traditional aspects of the library.
Q: Is it useful to think in terms of undergraduate and research libraries?
A: We’ve spent some time thinking about these and other issues involving the two-library system.
A: Von der Ahe might become more specialized with perhaps a research emphasis. We have hired a new dean of Libraries and she will be involved in the decision-making.
Q: Will there be carrels for graduate students?
A: We are planning a full range of ways to study in the new library, in groups or individually.
Comment: I represent the arts. It’s a more visual field of study. We have a slightly different perspective than other fields. University libraries are typically terrible sources for students to find inspiration for design and for pop culture examples. I want to re-emphasize the need for serendipity with books in library stacks. In our point of view the Internet can be a very limiting resource.
Comment: I would like to see the library take advantage of the unique topography and be an icon for Los Angeles to see from the bluff. The library would be a modern representation of the university, connecting us to the city below.
A: The amazing site we have been blessed with has not gone unnoticed by us. We are spending a lot of time figuring out how to capitalize on this space, with indoor and outdoor space.
Comment: I used to be opposed to the bookstore concept for a library but I’ve seen the British Columbia library that includes a mall and a café adjacent to library resources. I’ve seen it can be effective.
Q: Are there two libraries in the master plan? Is there any thought about connecting them somehow, as in changing the streets?
A: Yes, there are two libraries. They will be two separate buildings so there won’t be any physical connection between them. We’ll be discussing what goes into each library building. We certainly have talked about the entrance to the university and the visual importance the library holds as a place at the top of that drive into campus.
Q: It would be useful to consider revisiting the traffic flow on campus. Could there be a way to re-establish two-way traffic around the university?
A: Yes we’re looking at all vehicle and pedestrian traffic flow.
A: It would be ideal if we could get faculty responses to library questions on the questionnaire in the next week.
Responses on the facilities review questions would be appreciated by the end of the semester because the summer will be a very active time for us.
Comment: We’ve discussed food, aesthetics. I have a quasi-concern. When I was a student, the two things we looked at when applying to various universities were the quality of their faculty and their library building. The library is the heart of the learning process. I hope that too many bells and whistles will not be designed and will not overshadow the library’s primary mission.
A: Yes, it should have a scholarly ambience.
VI. Senate Elections Results – Damon Rago
Damon reported that 26 of 27 seats are filled on the Faculty Senate for 2006-07.
-It was moved and seconded to adopt the changes to the Bylaws of the Rank and Tenure committee.
Call for the question: motion passed unanimously.
-It was moved and seconded to approve the March Faculty Senate minutes.
Call for the question: motion passed with one abstention.
-It was moved and seconded to approve the February Faculty Senate minutes.
Call for the question: motion passed unanimously.
VII. Announcements by the President of the Faculty Senate – Vicki Graf
Gratitude and appreciation were extended to the Senators ending their terms this year: Marta Baltodano, Suzanne O’Brien, Jok Jok and Bob Singleton. Bill Cain is also giving his seat up to a colleague.
The Executive Board will put on the table for Senate consideration a proposal to meet twice a month instead of once a month in order to ensure progress of Senate efforts.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Submitted by: Cynthia Becht
Prepared by: Mary Stroud