February 16, 2006
Loyola Marymount University
Faculty Senate Minutes,
February 16, 2006
McIntosh Center, 3rd Floor, UHall
3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Present: Marta Baltodano, Cynthia Becht, William F. Cain, S.J., Jeffrey Davis, Omar Es-Said, Victoria Graf, Paul Harris, Chun I. Lee, Blake Mellor, Ed Mosteig, Elizabeth Murray, Suzanne O’Brien, K.J. Peters, Ralph Quiñones, Damon Rago, James Roe, Rhonda Rosen, Susan Scheibler
Excused: Charles E. Erven, Jok M. Jok, Nina Reich, Robert Singleton
President Graf called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. A moment of silence was observed for Patricia Walsh who is critically ill and struggling with cancer.
President Graf acknowledged the gratitude of Fr. Lawton regarding the Senate’s donations to the Mary K. Dasaro memorial scholarship fund.
The April Faculty Senate meeting has been changed to April 13 due to a scheduling conflict with the Student Academic Awards Ceremony.
I. Update on the Faculty Handbook and Reduced Teaching Load Committee – Matt Dillon
1. Faculty Handbook Voting. The number of ballots returned was 106. Of these, 88 approved the revisions in a block vote. 18 voters did not approve one or more items on the ballot. The pre-tenure sabbatical policy received the highest number of objections (8). Phase 1 revisions now pass to Administration for approval. Once approved, an electronic version of the faculty handbook will be distributed.
2. Reduced Teaching Load Committee. Matt is looking for faculty to serve on the committee. The plan is to bring the discussion eventually to the Deans’ Council. A possible direction for the committee may be to align its proposal with the vision of faculty development stated in the strategic plan.
II. Committee on the Evaluation of Administrators - Omar Es-Said, Matt Dillon, Michael Berg, and Sue Scheibler
- A draft document outlining the rationale and process of faculty evaluation of administrators was submitted to the Senate for comment. The suggested process consists of a referendum vote of approval or disapproval of a dean’s or the Academic Vice President’s performance. Deans would be evaluated once every two years and the AVP once every three years.
-Discussion:
Q: Are deans voted on only by the faculty of their own school?
A: Yes. All faculty will vote on the AVP.
Q: As we go through the process will voting become more detailed, separating out various responsibilities as our own evaluations are?
A: We submitted a more detailed vote proposal five years ago. Nothing was done; there were too many elements to agree upon. We want to bypass complications. Deans can respond to a disapproval vote and find out the details. It isn’t really an evaluation to vote simply a “yes” or “no” but we need to put our foot in the door and start the process.
Q: I really like the simplicity of this model. But we never ask our students simply “Is this professor good or bad”; we give them a point system (1-5). Perhaps we could incorporate a similar scale so that there could be more latitude without having to break the evaluation down into responsibilities.
A: The voting is completely anonymous so I’m not sure why faculty would be reluctant to use this model.
Comment: I think they might be reluctant for the dean’s sake, especially if the dean is considered neither bad nor good.
Q: Having the dean go back to faculty for details behind a disapproval vote could erase anonymity, especially in a smaller school. It can intimidate faculty to think they’ll be questioned. Also, if I were a dean, I would hate to hear just a simple “yes” or “no” approval of my work. I wouldn’t be helped by such a simple answer. If the evaluation is detailed enough, the problems would be spelled out and it would not be necessary to seek out information. It can even be built in that the dean does not go back to the faculty.
A: The problem is still that adding any details will keep the evaluation process from happening.
Comment: Let’s remember the purpose of this. It’s a general climate question. It’s not like a student evaluation. It’s a vote of confidence. I like the simplicity. Perhaps we could add another section for suggestions of what the dean could do differently.
Comment: I like simplicity as well but will a “yes” or “no” vote encourage mediocrity? Someone neither great nor that bad will get a vote of confidence. I think we should work for terms for administrators. Only chairs have them now.
Comment: I think we just need to get in the door. After a few cycles of a simple evaluation the dean might come to the Senate to find out about the process.
Q: What remedial teeth does this evaluation process have? If a dean doesn’t care about the vote, what are the consequences for a dean who does not respond to a no-confidence vote? What can we do?
A: Nothing but how would they look in front of the president? The embarrassment of a no-confidence vote is what we have. This is an extremely good statement to make, especially if the faculty says it in large numbers.
Q: Would the results of the evaluation be made known? They should be made known somehow; otherwise it can go straight from HR to the AVP with no faculty knowledge.
A: The proposal will be emended to include the stipulation that the vote goes back to the faculty and to the Senate.
Q: What stage is this at? Will this proposal be presented to the AVP without further action by the Senate?
A: No, the final proposal will be approved by the Senate. Send your comments to Omar and the committee will be back before the Senate for a vote on the cleaned up version.
III. Report from the Academic Planning and Review Committee -- Candace Poindexter and Sue Scheibler
- There will be a new academic program review process, reformulated after extensive research on assessment in higher education. The process will be more internal, looking towards learning outcomes. Departments as a whole will be actively involved in the process, defining goals as a group. There will be room for departments to decide what the program review will cover. External reviewers will be involved, as this is the model that universities are adopting.
-Discussion:
Q: What is the history of success of APRC to date? Recommendations are submitted. Are implementation plans executed?
A: The results vary greatly from department to department. Sometimes nothing has changed. If APRC recommends something that the department itself wanted, positive changes have occurred. The new approach will make deans and their departments more involved and responsible.
Q: I am curious about programs that already have an external review in place. Will the departments be forced to do twice the work?
A: Within the academic program review process you’ll be able to reference pages and sections of the report given to an external review committee so as not to duplicate work.
Q: I agree it is good to revisit goals. There is, however, resistance in my department to the APR’s use of corporate assessment language. I am wondering if the document outlining the new process can use general academic language explaining what the review is all about.
A: Excellent idea.
Comment: As faculty we know that academia is not a corporate world.
Comment: The U.S. Department of Education is putting out proposals on how to measure the success of higher education. We need to be pro-active and have a response to it.
Comment: We serve the public, not the government. I would encourage APRC to find a way to “make this program ours,” make it LMU’s and higher education’s and not structured as “theirs.” Find language appropriate to our mission and there will be less resistance. Replace some of the acronyms.
Q: There’s a more serious question about assessment. This is a term of the moment and is unjustified. Assessment is what we do all the time. It’s second nature to a teacher.
A: That’s not true of all departments here. Using my school as an example, we’ve been good but this process has made us better.
Q: As a short follow-up: it’s the way it’s been administered, and the language used. If the process is presented as the job we’ve already been doing, it would appear differently to us.
A: We will work out the problems and come back to the Senate.
IV. A discussion with Ernest Rose, Academic Vice President
-AVP Rose discussed the following issues:
1. Faculty compensation. It will take one million dollars to establish equity based upon the faculty pay analysis. Only half of this amount will be funded for next year. The other half is guaranteed for the following year. There will be no need to negotiate for it in the budget process. Equity monies will be handed to the deans who will determine the individual amounts to be provided, with the help of their chairs.
2. Budgeting process. All requests are being weighed by the budget committee. This year’s requests included focus on issues of infrastructure, deferred maintenance and safety. Graduate tuition, housing and undergraduate tuition increases will be about the same as last year.
-Discussion:
Q: Will there be financial aid increases to go along with tuition increases?
A: There will be a meeting next week to discuss finding funds for financial aid.
Q: Is there any correlation between tuition increases and faculty compensation?
A: Obviously some tuition goes toward faculty compensation as new money to work with. There is also merit to consider which will be 3.5 % like last year.
Q: Is 3.5 across the board?
A: There have been no decisions yet on what percentage is across the board and what will be extra.
Q: Do you know how the 3.5 % compares with last year’s inflation rate?
A: I’m not sure, but think that inflation was probably around that.
Q: Where does the merit come in then?
A: That’s a good question but that’s where equity issues also take place. The study showed that we were off in some areas and very competitive in others.
Q: What is the percentage of increase for administrative salaries?
A: 3.5 % is used for everyone: faculty, staff and administrators.
Q: What are your thoughts on financial transparency? We used to get published status reports on university finances. Do you think it would be good to move back to that?
A: I was told the budget process is more transparent now than it used to be.
Q: Would you be supportive of published status reports?
A: Of course. It seems reasonable.
Q: What is the increase in money allocated to need-based students or rates of compensation for student workers? Will their rates go up 7.5 % for paying the tuition?
A: This is unlikely. Students qualify for a certain package. We need to remember to look at what is happening on the state level and federal level. Nothing is static so it is difficult to predict.
Q: It is difficult to predict if you are going to end up in the black. But tuition revenue is exact, it is generally over budget for student numbers, so you know what the revenue is going to be.
A: The budget is based on prediction of revenues. I’ll bring up with the Cabinet the question of disclosure and publication. We’re also looking ahead at the issue of healthcare benefits. Current contracting for benefits runs out in June and the cost increases will impact the budget significantly. Hopefully the university will pick that up and not pass it on to the staff.
Q: There is a lot of feeling among the faculty that there are two cultures at odds here, the academic and the corporate administrative. It has created a fairly poisonous atmosphere. What’s missing on campus is an atmosphere of good faith. Upper and middle administration make decisions with no faculty involvement. Budget issues and assessment issues are two examples. The “efficiency” model is not efficient. Time that is taken to learn the budget form and assessment language and procedures is time taken from other faculty duties. Faculty who resist are seen as resisting just as an academic culture issue. However, ask the administrators to learn the academic world and there is no response.
A: It’s been a learning process for me to have gone through the budgeting process. I hope the message did get clearly conveyed that we did not set the deadlines for the budgeting process. I think there’s been a lack of understanding that budgeting is a twelve-month process. The deans and I will look at spreading the deadlines out over a full year. It will give everyone more time to think, to make changes. Hopefully the Academic Affairs’ budget will be done by December 31.
Q: I appreciate that answer about making the process more efficient. If there were a budget officer as liaison, it would help. But there’s the bigger picture of the way in which faculty are communicated to. There is a current political climate of language of accountability and assessment, political consequences of academic freedom and tenure. It is important to connect our issue of communication to the broader political climate and make sure that the academic climate is not subsumed by corporate language.
A: Well said and I share your concern.
Q: Our voice ends with you; whom else do we have? It has little to do with your actual responsibility in action, but you’re our advocate.
A: It shouldn’t have to be that way. We’re working to give deans more voice so that they can be better advocates. They meet more regularly with the Cabinet and with Fr. Lawton so that you have more voices than mine to support you. As the choir increases, the power increases. We’re trying to open up the power structure.
Comment: This is very much appreciated but I worry that faculty may become so frustrated with others advocating for them that they will demand self advocacy. I would like to see faculty attend the Cabinet meetings.
Q: I personally want you to keep advocating for us. It’s good if there’s more power with the deans and hopefully the Faculty Senate at the Cabinet meetings, but I hope you continue to be our advocate.
A: I do see myself as the chief advocate. I’m hoping to have company but that is my number one role. I believe that if we move up as a university in others’ eyes it will be because of what you do.
Q: I hope what we’re saying is that it’s time to change and improve the current academic model that you’ve inherited. We do feel collectively and individually that we are in the dark. We hope you understand our position and support it.
A: I am moving toward more local power, for peer to peer decisions directing monies in ways to help people advance their work. An example are the new faculty summer grants. Faculty will be given more options: to use the money as a summer grant, as an academic grant, to buy out a course, etc. We want to create a better and more flexible program in order to be as competitive and productive as possible. We expect that good things will happen with these kinds of redistribution.
V. Elections Committee Report – Damon Rago
- Senators are urged to encourage participation when the nomination forms are received and to convey the importance of the Faculty Senate.
- Damon is compiling a template packet of elections material that can be used every year. This will be submitted for the approval of the Senate.
-Discussion:
Q: Can I write a resolution to offer a one, two, or three-year seat?
A: This would require a change in the by-laws.
Q: Is there anything in the by-laws about deputizing someone if a senator goes on sabbatical for a year?
A: This will be investigated. (The following is from the Faculty Senate Bylaws – II.C. “Vacancies due to sabbatical or other anticipated leaves will be filled by an election in the spring, and the substitute will serve for the duration of the term s/he is filling or the duration of the leave, whichever is shorter.”
VI. Report of the President to the Faculty Senate
1. R. Chad Dreier, chair of the Board of Trustees, will be coming to the March meeting to consider any questions or comments of the Senators.
2. Reports from the sub-committees will be requested during the next Senate meeting.
3. Tom Fleming and Dan Forgeron will be invited to speak in April.
-Discussion of future topics:
Comment: We haven’t heard from Admissions in a while. I would like to hear about their strategies for recruiting students.
Comment: A discussion on transparency could include all salary ranges of faculty, deans and administrators.
Comment: The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that data.
Comment: May we revisit the maternity/family leave policy? We’ve been told for three years that it’s being worked on. In the meantime we’re trying to recruit junior women faculty and have no policy to show them.
-It was moved and seconded to approve the January minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Next meeting: March 16, McIntosh Center, 3rd Floor, UHall
Submitted by: Cynthia Becht
Prepared by: Mary Stroud