January 19, 2006
Loyola Marymount University
Faculty Senate Minutes
January 19, 2006
McIntosh Center, 3rd Floor, UHall
3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Present: Marta Baltodano, Cynthia Becht, William F. Cain, S.J., Charles E. Erven, Omar Es-Said, Victoria Graf, Paul Harris, Chun I. Lee, Blake Mellor, Elizabeth Murray, Suzanne O’Brien, K.J. Peters, Ralph Quiñones, Nina Reich, James A. Roe, Susan Scheibler
Excused: Jeffrey Davis, Jok M. Jok, Ed Mosteig, Damon Rago, Rhonda Rosen, Robert Singleton
President Graf called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Bill Cain, S.J. opened with a prayer followed by a moment of silence in remembrance of the tragic death of Mary Kate Dasaro, daughter of faculty member George Dasaro. It was agreed unanimously that flowers and a donation be sent to the Dasaro family on behalf of the Faculty Senate.
I. Updates on the Faculty Handbook and Committees – Matt Dillon
1. In order for Phase 1 to pass, there needs to be a majority of ballots returned with votes approving the revisions, no specific percentage required. If the revisions are approved, there will be a paginated version of the Handbook distributed as a PDF file to all faculty. Also, several key documents will be added to the handbook when they are completed. These include the anti-discrimination policy, a history of LMU to be written by Mike Engh, S.J., the organizational chart, and descriptions of faculty titles.
2. The following Senate sub-committees have been set up related to additional areas
to be considered for inclusion in the Handbook.
· Rank and Tenure Committee chaired by Vicki Graf.
· Evaluation of Administrators Committee chaired by Omar Es-Said.
· 3/2 Course Load Proposal Committee chaired by Matt Dillon (See Item 3 below).
· Faculty Governance Committee chaired by Paul Harris
· Merit and Evaluation Committee chaired by KJ Peters
3. The Core Curriculum Committee. There has been some direction toward renewal of the Core Curriculum. The committee has produced a 6-page document summarizing the status of the question. The committee will be meeting with the AVP next week to discuss the Core. Matt Dillon has been appointed as liaison of the Committee to the Senate.
-Discussion:
Q: What would be the direction of a sub-committee on the 3-2 teaching load? What is it that you want investigated?
A: The sub-committee would investigate the value of a 3-2 teaching load, to build a case for it. Extra service required of faculty has made the 3-3 model a challenge. New academic excellence goals also support looking at the 3-2 model. It’s the consequences of a 3-2 course load that the sub-committee would explore. How would it work? It might have to happen departmentally.
Comment: The dynamics of the university have changed dramatically over recent years There is a lot of pressure to publish. We also used to have more secretarial help; now we are expected to do this work on our own. We have assumed more responsibility outside the classroom and we have not been given the resources to make it work. Time is a valuable resource.
Q: Would it be possible to investigate more than one model; 2-2 as well as 3-2?
A: We might explore parallel models but a 3-2 would be the more realistic focus.
Comment: We should look at the 3-2 since the university will have to hire part-time faculty to teach what we don’t.
Comment: I think Boston College is currently at 2-2. My department is in competition with Boston College for publishing. When I started teaching at LMU we had a 4-4 course load. Twenty years ago we moved to a 3-3, not to a 4-3 model. I hope it wouldn’t take another twenty years to get to a 2-2 if we first move to a 3-2.
Comment: This needs to be discussed strategically. The sub-committee should look for language to build a thoughtful argument in support of 3-2 and begin the discussion.
Comment: Time and effort spent on teaching at LMU is greater than at other universities since students here are more demanding.
Comment: The discussion should be maintained at the department level since each has unique issues that need to be addressed. If the goal of my department’s graduate program is to be ranked in the top 100 listing, we can’t continue with the 3-3 teaching load. Even 3-2 would be difficult.
Q: Why is it our responsibility to come up with this presentation if the President has already indicated that it is a good idea?
A: It is important because no one has done anything about it even though it has been talked about. We want to approach it as a Handbook issue in order to make it official.
- A motion was entered to create an ad-hoc sub-committee to investigate an altered course load. The motion passed unanimously.
II. Update on Faculty Pay Analysis -- Ernest Rose, Academic Vice President, Rebecca Chandler, Assistant Vice President of Human Resources, and Luellen Lucid of Watson Wyatt
- Results of the market analysis were reviewed in a detailed presentation. Faculty pay has been analyzed at the department level this time in order to gain a more accurate understanding of where each of LMU’s academic departments stands in comparison to its counterparts at comparator institutions. The analysis data shows that some progress has been made since the 2003 Watson Wyatt study, particularly at the Assistant Professor level. There is still some catch-up to do at the Associate and Full Professor levels. Watson Wyatt is working on an approach that will make LMU competitive on all professor levels.
- The plan for implementation includes the following steps: 1. The pay philosophy needs to be finalized. 2. The actual study needs to be completed. 3. Deans will look at each incumbent by rank and make recommendations to the AVP. The cabinet will decide what the university can afford to do. AVP Rose stressed that action must be taken quickly or the study will fall behind. Affordability needs to be addressed. Deans will determine how compensation is distributed.
-Discussion:
Q: Do the salary ranges include other things like flex benefits?
A: The averages reflect base pay only.
Comment: UCLA has slipped over the years because of failed state funding. Comparing their ranges to LMU’s may not signify that LMU is doing better but that the UC system is doing worse.
Q: Will the Full Professor level be looked at since you don’t have a retention problem at that level?
A: Compression needs to be addressed so that people are fairly compensated across all levels. Ignoring full professors would deny LMU’s mission of fairness.
Q: Steps for implementation were described cautiously. In the current climate of transparency, how will information come down the pipe?
A: There is some confidentiality as part of the philosophy here at LMU so the process will not be 100% transparent.
Q: I’m wondering about the compensation figures that are being provided regardless of the years of service. Assistant professors coming in are being paid almost the same as Associate professors. This is very demoralizing.
A: Yes, it’s happening everywhere. We don’t want to replicate the trend.
Q: There has been frequent increase of tuition but no salary increases.
A: As far as tuition increases are concerned, it is important to remember that building supplies and utility costs are sky-rocketing. These fixed costs have to be funded by tuition before salaries can be. Also, we have not seen an increase in health care costs passed down to faculty in two years. Administration will soon be looking at this issue. It will certainly be a challenging issue and will somehow have to be absorbed.
Q: Following up on the disparity between tuition and salary increases, when I started working at LMU, salary was 60% of the operating budget. Now it’s below 20% of the operating budget. One wonders where the money has gone.
A: As just one example, LMU spends two million dollars per year on entertainment/catering.
III. Update on the Hannon Library -- Rick Garcia, Assistant Vice President for Facilities Management, Paul Danna, Design Architect and Charlene Decker, Project Architect of DMJM
-DMJM repeated part of the presentation they had provided LMU during the architect selection process. Design boards were shown and design philosophy for the future library was discussed. The design process is scheduled to begin in March. DMJM currently is gathering feedback.
- The project issues deal with time, place, purpose, and patron. Issues of time: Libraries tend to be more social centers today. Information is disseminated in a variety of ways. There are different ways of studying and storing information. Issues of purpose: The best libraries function clearly with structural logic in their floor plans. Logical, repetitive planning works best. Special considerations need to be given to the individual user, including light, quality of space, safety. Issues of place: A specific site on the bluff has been chosen. Place considerations range from the mundane (service/access points) to thinking about the library in concert with the master plan. Also discussed were elements including new entry experiences and the library serving as a new social space between academic and residential areas, with open space around the building. Great institutions are known by their spaces.
-Discussion:
Comment: With all the talk of outdoor space and entry plaza and functions of the library, I noticed the word “books” wasn’t on any of the boards. The social and technological functions mentioned in the presentation describe the villages we’ve created in University Hall, the direction in which our space has gone. The library would be made less distinctive if it were made to resemble UH. I wonder about the function of the library. There’s a huge concern among faculty for actual stack space. Browsing of books is an invaluable component of research.
Comment: Browsing is important for teaching our students. We want students to gain a systemic view of knowledge instead of just having kids walk around pod-casting or books sliding down slots. The tyranny of technology doesn’t allow for that kind of knowledge.
Comment: I’d like to emphasize the need for browsing in my discipline as well. I receive so much benefit walking through open stacks.
A: DMJM has been entitled to build 87,000 square feet. Additionally, we are keeping the Von der Ahe Library. There are a lot of ideas being thrown around as to how to maximize the space limitations that we have.
Q: Faculty don’t love the idea of compact shelving or an Automated Retrieval System (ARS). But how are 20 years of growth space going to be included in the design? DMJM is only designing the one building, yes?
A: We are only designing the one building. Retrofitting of the current building is not part of our assignment. However there will be a program design as well that will speak to the issues of where everything will go.
A: We needed 120,000 sq. ft; we only have the right to build 87,000 sq. ft. on the bluff site. I imagine that growth concerns will have to be addressed by both buildings.
Q: There’s a two-building plan? I’d heard the Von der Ahe would be gutted.
A: We are running under the assumption that the current library will remain a library in some shape or form.
Q: Was I clear in hearing you need 120,000 sq. ft. of space?
A: Those were the stats when I came on board.
Q: Was the reduction to 87,000 square feet a trustee decision?
A: It’s the amount set by conditional use of that site. It’s what’s left to use on Leavey.
Q: As we are at the gathering stage, I am curious about how the decision process will be made. Great institutions are known by their open spaces -- and by their libraries. This is a crucial issue for the faculty.
A: AVP Rose has established a committee. Two faculty members are on that committee. The final plan will have to fit into the master plan of the university.
Q: How are you planning on eliciting feedback from students and faculty? Will there be focus groups?
A: Yes, we’re just figuring out how to do that.
Q: Have you decided upon a footprint? Is the location set?
A: Yes. After the original site fell through, where Public Safety is now, the footprint became the bluff site.
Q: Are there any concerns about the geology on the bluff? What about mudslides or earthquakes?
A: It’s a challenge.
Comment: The ability to roam stacks is imperative. Research for the arts often gets marginalized. We need visual materials and it’s very difficult to find these in academic libraries. I send my students to public libraries. If we go to a digital mode, what the students bring back is useless. You need to be able to hold the physical item in your hand, even if a reproduction of an original work. The internet is counterproductive to what we’re trying to teach. Perhaps we need to consider an art library.
Comment: I use browsing to teach my students how knowledge is organized, to get an embodied experience of organization by wandering through the stacks. A well-designed library can provide an example of knowledge categories. It’s a tour of contemporary knowledge.
Comment: As a mathematician I go to the databases on-line. I almost never go to the library. I think nowadays technology is equally important.
Comment: I don’t think we have a dilemma. We can do both models. We can use technology to teach students how to use technology.
Comment: I don’t think that the advancement and recognition of technology is being overlooked or dismissed. Some of us, though, are concerned about the preservation of tradition. We don’t have to abandon the past to move into the future. A happy medium is what we want.
Comment: We’re concerned with functionality. We may be concerned with competing interests on campus. Trustees may want a showpiece. We are concerned that the library may lose its function. It’s a library first and foremost.
Comment: I’d be concerned about the winds on the bluff when designing open space. A promenade may be nice but not associated with library work or study.
Q: The library should be infused with the university’s mission: social justice, education of the whole person, community outreach, and LMU as part of Los Angeles. How does the library reflect our principles?
A: We’re wondering what that magic is. This is the issue of patron. What defines LMU? The common denominator in the plan was the idea of light. We want LMU to represent a light or a beacon to the community.
Q: In terms of the symbolic dimension and meaning of light, are you also planning space for art as well as planning a building as art? Will there be alcoves for paintings or outside spaces for sculpture?
A: It would be wonderful. Experience tells me not to count on it.
Q: When I started working here, a percentage of LMU’s books were already housed off-campus. When all is said and done, will there be space for everything on campus plus 20 years of growth? At the last university I worked, a multi-million dollar library building was built that had a coffee bar but much less shelf space than the former building had had. It was sad to see dumpsters outside the library with books dumped in.
A: There’s a substantial projected increase of volumes for the LMU library. A two-building plan is a given. It’s already been decided.
A: Part of the planning process for DMJM is that we’re going to look at what the library may be like in the future, what does it mean for 20 years.
IV. Report of the President to the Faculty Senate
- University budget committee. All the VP’s, deans, faculty and staff senates, and ASLMU made presentations to the committee. President Graf requested an increase in the Senate’s catering budget due to the sharp cost increases as well as monies for an administrative assistant. The ESOF report was given.
- Equity in terms of salary adjustments was discussed. More data on what was given over the last few years is needed in order to make a good case that salaries have not kept up with inflation.
-Discussion
Q: Will salary decisions still be localized to the deans?
A: We want to ask AVP Rose to come back and discuss the issue of accountability as it relates to allocation of resources and autonomy of the colleges and deans. There is a lot of disparity across campus.
Q: What prevents transparency of salaries? Why can’t we publish salaries? Is there some kind of law in place?
A: No. It is just custom here.
- A sub-committee on governance is being created. It will be chaired by Paul Harris. Ideally there should be three members on the committee in order to keep things moving. Some faculty have been approached to serve on the committee; no replies have been returned yet.
- It was moved and seconded to approve the December minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Submitted by: Cynthia Becht
Prepared by: Mary Stroud