September 21, 2006
Loyola Marymount University
Faculty Senate Minutes
September 21, 2006
Collins Center
3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Present: Blake Mellor, Cynthia Becht, Jeffrey Davis, Charles Erven, Sonny Espinoza, Omar Es-Said, Rudy Fleck, Vicki Graf, Paul Harris, Gary Kuleck, Yvette Lapayese, Chun Lee, Mel Mendelson, Ed Mosteig, Liz Murray, Jennifer Offenberg, K. J. Peters, Ralph Quiñones, Nina Reich, Rhonda Rosen, Jonathan Rothchild, Sue Scheibler, Seth Thompson
Excused: Najwa Al-Qattan, Damon Rago and James Roe
President Graf called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. She led the meeting with a moment of prayer and reflection reading “Trust in the Slow Work of God” from the book Prayers and Reflections for Educators.
The many contributors to the renovation of the Collins Center, including the Senior Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs, University Relations, and Administration as well as Mr. Chad Drier, Chair of the LMU Board of Trustees, were acknowledged and thanked.
Rosa Calderon, Administrative Coordinator for Faculty and Staff Senates and the Committee on Rank and Tenure was introduced to the Senators who had not yet met her.
I. Presentation by Associate VP Margaret Kasimatis – “Achieving Excellence by Creating a Learning Organization.”
- Margaret Kasimatis, Associate VP for Institutional Effectiveness, introduced herself and led a discussion on WASC and how LMU can leverage the review process. She emphasized that LMU’s mission is to promote academic excellence and explained how that mission is related to the institution as a learning organization. Associate VP Kasimatis noted the importance of self analysis. WASC’s new model addresses accreditation as a learning opportunity that should include everyone. She suggested that the Faculty Senate contribute to the accreditation process by sharing information that will be provided to them with their constituencies.
Q: It’s hard not to feel I belong to the old model; the word “opportunity” seems to be a euphemism for doing more. The new product-oriented model takes away from a focus on the education of the whole person. I wonder why Jesuit language is not incorporated in management language here. We might gain a shared vision sensibility if we did.
A: The suggestion is appreciated and I will take the suggestion to the WASC Steering Committee.
Q: What assessment specifics do you want us to do? We don’t know what we’re supposed to be looking for.
A: I am not suggesting that faculty do more work. We hope to make the process more institutionalized so that it becomes easier and more transparent for everyone. I suggest that faculty do not collect more data but, rather, assess the data they already have. There is no one right answer to describe how to assess correctly because the measures used will depend on what is being assessed and will differ among the disciplines.
President Graf indicated that CTE will be hosting programs regarding assessment and evaluation and how LMU can become a “learning organization.”
The Senate discussed evaluating its own effectiveness as part of the process of being a learning organization. President Graf suggested that Senators send her suggestions and comments. She will speak to Associate VP Kasimatis about promoting dialogue among the faculty in preparation for the WASC visit that will occur in October 2007.
II. Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes for April 13, 2006.
It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting on April 13, 2006. Call for the question – 2 abstentions. Motion passed.
III. Discussion with CAO Ernie Rose
- CAO Rose discussed some of the accomplishments and changes which had taken place in Academic Affairs over the last year. The positions of Associate Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness, Dean of Libraries, and Administrative Coordinator to the Faculty and Staff Senates and Rank and Tenure Committee have been filled. He reaffirmed the University’s commitment to distribute the faculty salary equity pool within two years.
- CAO Rose talked about the changes made to summer start-up packages, which can be used during the academic year. Money was added to the packages in order for LMU to compete more aggressively for new faculty.
- CAO Rose also changed the summer grants process in order to create better options for continuing faculty. The known amounts of funds were allocated across departments. There may be additional support from Rains if possible. He believes that by localizing grants monies, faculty will be given as much equal opportunity as possible with one’s peers deciding what is grant-worthy rather than someone who might not understand the research or creative endeavor undertaken in some colleges. He understands that the changes were not communicated clearly or consistently among the colleges via the deans and takes full responsibility for the lack of advance communication.
- CAO Rose talked about Matt Dillon’s new role as Special Assistant to Academic Affairs. Matt is working on three projects: revision of the Faculty Handbook, a proposed reduction of the teaching load, and revision of the Core Curriculum. CAO Rose has allocated $10,000 for Matt and the Core Curriculum Committee to conduct research on the latter project in order to ensure a successful outcome.
Q: When the study on salary was made, was gender disparity addressed internally?
A: We do not know that as well as we should university-wide. Some deans have looked at that. Rebecca Chandler and I are looking into it as well. We find that it happens through equity and merit.
Q: I appreciate your opening up the discussion of the grants changes. Is increasing the budget a priority?
A: Now that we’ve made a start, I hope support will increase in the operational budget. LMU should commit to faculty research. My plan is to systematically add more to the budget. We’ll have additional indirect funds to add to the pool and a portion will go back to principal investigators. It will take us time to get there so we’ll be dependent upon the Rains endowment at least for matching funds for a while.
Q: Will you revisit particulars of the decision?
A: The decision may change because this is an evaluative process. Faculty and deans will have a conversation about how it goes this year. The grants changes are what they are for this year, but it will be important to get feedback through the chairs and deans. I don’t want a process that doesn’t work.
Q: Is there a plan to support our infrastructures to make us competitive with other institutions which have fabulous infrastructures?
A: I do not expect LMU to be like UCLA and USC. We will not be a Research One institution but that doesn’t matter. We need to focus on producing quality research to add to the undergraduate research experience. It’s a slow road to support infrastructure through tuition. We have different kinds of roads to get there, such as funding through University Relations campaigns. We need to develop a strategy and goals of where we want to be in 5 years.
Q: Overhead in the past was mostly used to fix equipment in my department. Now I get 20% overhead. What is your commitment?
A: It is not a good strategy to get grants to fix your machines. A better strategy would be to talk with your Dean to find funding to get adequate equipment and instrumentation.
Q: I have a question about hiring procedures in departments. A new policy was handed down last year which some of us only now heard about. My dean could not tell me what the rationale was for the change in protocol. I am wondering what the rationale behind the changes was. Why are search committees not allowed to rank candidates in order of preference? Faculty are only allowed to state “highly qualified,” “qualified,” or “unqualified” when submitting names of finalist candidates to their deans. In my department it used to be the department’s choice in consultation with the dean. Now it’s the dean’s choice only. There has been a shift in power.
A: The new hiring procedure was a change in practice, not a change in policy. The policy is outlined in the Faculty Handbook. The change in practice does not oppose the policy. Nothing in practice hinders the department from taking a group vote on a candidate and handing the vote to the Dean, but it is not binding. The change was meant to have deans work with search committees and faculty to get qualitative not quantitative responses.
Q: When the search committee I was on was faced with this memo it seemed to us that it did contradict the Handbook so we went back to the old practice. There used to be a sense of voice in the search process for faculty and now there is not.
Q: The policy works in my department because it allowed our dean to diversify the faculty. So it seems the effect of this change differs among schools. But among the community there is an increasing sense of disconnect. We feel more disempowered as changes come down from the top.
Q: What was so wrong with the old way? No one is pointing out what was wrong with what we were doing.
A: If you feel really strongly that this is off-kilter then this is an important conversation to have with your dean. I’m not opposed to revisiting this but please engage in the conversation.
Q: I hope that you will entertain a revision by the Faculty Senate.
A: Certainly and I’ll share what I heard with the Deans at the Deans’ Council and ask them what they’ve heard.
Q: Switching to the topic of Administrative name changes, some faculty feel uncomfortable with the recent changes. Were these necessary? We don’t understand what’s going on.
A: It wasn’t my initiative, but there was a study made on administrative compensation along with the study on faculty compensation. The study showed other universities are changing administrative titles and Watson Wyatt recommended that we do as well.
President Graf thanked Ernie Rose for his visit. Faculty were encouraged to invite CAO Rose to visit their departments to talk about any issues they would like to discuss with him. Shannon Pascual, Executive Assistant to Dr. Rose, will help coordinate the meeting/visits for CAO Rose.
President Graf introduced and thanked Stephanie August, Representative to the Trustees on the Technology Committee, for attending the meeting.
IV. Motions on Faculty Handbook Revisions – Matt Dillon
Revising the Faculty Handbook in a timely manner is hampered when entire packages of revisions are held back whenever Administration makes changes that render the language obsolete. The Senate discussed the following motions submitted by Matt:
- First Motion – On the Withholding of Obsolete Approved Handbook Changes from the process of final approval.
- Whereas significant changes have been made in the nomenclature and duties of certain Academic Officers which render inaccurate the Handbook changes approved by the Faculty and Senate in the 2005-06 Academic Year.
- It is moved that item 2-9 of Section III be withheld from the process of final approval until the inaccuracies can be corrected.
- Call for the question - Motion passed unanimously.
- Second Motion – Amendment to Section VII of the Faculty Handbook: Procedure for Amending the Faculty Handbook.
§ “Whereas there are certain technical, non-substantive changes (for example nomenclature) that will have no effect upon the environment, life and work of the professoriate, and
§ Whereas the submission of such changes to the lengthy process of amending the Handbook as delineated in Section VII is cumbersome and inefficient
§ It is moved that the following language be added as an amendment to Section VII: Procedures for Amending the Faculty Handbook, following the penultimate paragraph (viz., “In some matters…..after consultation with the faculty.”):
In addition, certain technical, non-substantive details (e.g. nomenclature), insofar as they are purely cosmetic, may be exempted from the above procedure. Technical, non-substantive details may be revised in the Handbook by a majority vote of the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate is required to determine whether such changes fall into a technical/ cosmetic category, or represent more substantive issues requiring the full approval of Senate and Faculty.
§ Amendment: Remove descriptions of procedures, policies, and other matters that the faculty would not be dealing with or voting on and focus on substantive material.
§ Amendment vote resulted in 10 in favor, 8 opposed and 1 abstention
§ Call for the question - 18 in favor and 2 abstentions. Motion passed.
VI. Rank and Tenure Subcommittee
The Senate discussed the draft of Early Application for Tenure and Promotion with emphasis on the question of allowing faculty who apply early for tenure to reapply if they have been turned down during early application. The rationale for offering early application for tenure is to retain exceptional faculty.
§ Early Application for Tenure and Promotion: A change was made to the second paragraph, 3rd sentence to read as follows: “If an early application for tenure and/or promotion is denied, the faculty member may not reapply until the final year of their probationary period.”
§ Call for the question - 12 in favor, 2 opposed, 6 abstentions. Motion passed.
President Graf asked the Faculty Senate if they felt they still had work pending after this 3 hour meeting and asked if they wanted to meet the following week. It was decided that the Senate will meet twice a month for two hours per meeting for the duration of the semester. The next meeting was scheduled for October 5th, from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m., in the Collins Center.
It was moved and seconded that the Faculty Senate revisit, at the end of the semester, the decision to have two meetings a month.
Call for the question – 14 in favor, 2 opposed and 4 abstentions. Motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Submitted by: Cynthia Becht
Prepared by: Rosa Calderon
C:\mydocuments\rosa-2006\facultysenate\facultysenateminutes-2006\facultysenatemeetingminutes-FINAL-9-21-06