St. Mary’s University

391st Meeting of the Faculty Senate

December 16, 2005

 

 

 

APPROVED

 

Present

Senators Boggess, Curet, Diaz, Hampton, Juarez, Lesher, Losiewicz, Maloney, Menger, Merrell, Novoa, O’Connor, Pallansch, Poyo, Wolff

 

Absent (all excused)

Senators Byrd, Cutting, Oberle, Uhlig

 

Visitor

Prof. Robert Hu

 

Opening Prayer

The meeting was opened at 1:35pm with a prayer offered by Senator Novoa.

 

Approval of Minutes for 390th Meeting

Minutes of the 390th meeting were approved without correction with a motion by Senator Boggess and seconded by Senator Menger.

 

President’s Report

Meeting with Vice President Manuel (Nov. 22)

President Hampton reported that Faculty Senate Officers met with V.P. Manuel and continued to work on proposed language changes in the Faculty Handbook dealing with leave of absence and sabbatical leave. Earlier bylaw changes that had met Senate approval have now made it through the Board of Trustees. A new handbook will be issued reflecting those changes will be issued in the near future. Pres. Hampton also mentioned that changes in the research integrity policy had also been made.

 

A meeting date to invite Vice President Manuel to speak to the Senate was discussed. Senators felt that January 13 was too early. President Hampton will check to see if a special meeting date of January 20th would be possible. Hampton suggested issues the Senate might want to take up during a special session including reworking the grievance and sabbatical processes, faculty workload, faculty-administration relationships and a possible task force of Academic Council and Faculty Senators to work on some of these issues. He mentioned that Vice President Manuel was interested in talking with the Senate about changes to the Senior Faculty Review process.

 

Senator O’Connor noted that the proposed task force had not had a favorable response in the past but that he thought there was universal agreement that the senior faculty review process needed to be changed.

 

Senator Diaz stated that she thought the issue of workload was a broader issue and that perhaps senior faculty review could become a part of the workload issue.

 

Senator Curet asked about the Senate’s request for President Cotrell to meet with the Spring 2005 Review Committee. President Hampton said he had not passed on the request due to postponement of the Dec. 13th meeting with Pres. Cotrell. Further discussion ensued regarding the level of Faculty Senate response. Senator Juarez reported that he had learned from Prof. Hartigan that she had been in contact with the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). It was the position of AALS that the Review Committee and/or the Faculty Senate should have filed a protest against the decision of the President not to meet with the committee before further action could be taken by the association.

 

Senator Boggess said that procedures were followed by the committee but that the president did not respond in a timely manner. Senator Juarez said that the grievance had been filed in the fall of 2004 and the committee was not called to meet until May of the following year. He said that the procedure had been dragged out way too long and that provisions and protections of the Faculty Handbook were being ignored.

 

Senator O’Connor stated that the Senate needed to compose a resolution outlining some of the procedural gaffes made by the administration. Senator Diaz asked if the review committee had requested a meeting with administration regarding the matter. Senator Juarez said they had not. Senator Novoa stated that she was disturbed that the administration would ignore a duly elected faculty committee and that the problem was more than procedural. She felt that the administration should provide a reasoned opinion for not following advisory committee recommendations. Senator Juarez said he would again ask the President to meet with the Review Committee before January 27th (the date of the next Faculty Senate meeting) so that the Faculty Senate could consider further appropriate action.

 

Senate Committee Reports

Committee A—(Faculty Development) Senators Menger, Diaz, and Poyo met on December 6 and compiled a list of issues/questions that they would like the Academic Vice President to address. (See Attachment) Senator Menger said that the committee would be glad to add additional comments and questions to the report. Senator Diaz stated that she hoped that Vice President Manuel could address differences between faculty and administration expectations of scholarship as well as how scholarship fit into the strategic plan. The Senate discussed whether questions generated by Committee A should be the focus of a special Senate session. Senator Hampton said he would submit the questions to the Vice President and ask him if he would like to meet with the subcommittee first before addressing the general Senate.

 

Committee E-(Code of Conduct) Senator Pallansch said that she had received a list of peer institutions and that the committee would look at similarities between those institutions and the proposed code of conduct at St. Mary’s.

 

 

University Committee Reports

Athletic Cabinet—President Hampton noted that any proposals to change academic eligibility had to go through the Vice Presidents office and the proposal referenced at the previous senate meeting had not gotten to that stage.

 

Budget Committee—Senator Pallansch went over several budget issues that had been addressed at the budget meeting including seven priority goals which included increased funding for advising, retention and assessment; funding for improved learning environments including internship experience; endowment building to provide for more money for faculty research and development; academic outreach—monitoring and tracking of graduate success and marketing of nontraditional degree programs; money for facilities; staff training in technology; and increased accessibility through the wireless network.

 

Budget reallocation was being examined to support undergraduate research initiatives and increased funding of the international relations program.

 

Core Transition Team—Senators Poyo and Pallansch reported that the team was reviewing foundational documents and starting to put together ideas regarding a description of the content of the core and developing the values side of the core. The team was undertaking to think about the bridge between the current core and the proposed core.

 

Benefits Committee—Senator O’Connor said that voluntary phased retirement plan was being reviewed.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 with a motion by Senator Curet and a second by Senator Losiewicz.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Marcella Lesher

Faculty Senate 2005-06

 

Report to the Faculty Senate on December 16, 2005

of

Meeting of Committee A on December 6, 2005

 

Committee members Menger (Chairperson), Diaz and Poyo met Dec. 6 to discuss faculty research expectations and support. The following issues were discussed.

 

  1. What is the status of funding for faculty development grants?

·  Has it been cut? When and how much? Why were we not notified?

·  How does this affect research opportunities for faculty?

·  Is the university working to increase this support?

·  There may be a need to revise the parameters for allocating these grants

·  The expectation that the research be “new” forbids faculty engaged in book-length and broader research projects from gaining support

 

  1. What can be done to provide support for grants for faculty research?

·  What is the grants office doing to support faculty grant needs?

·  There is a lack of adequate effort to support faculty research available from the grants office

·  If more financial support must come from outside sources, then we need a grants office specifically to work with faculty

 

  1. Is the University still committed to support faculty excellence in the areas of research, publication and scholarship?

·  Have these expectations changed?

·  Is there a plan in place to secure funding for faculty research?

·  Is the development office making any efforts toward this?

 

  1. What are the expectations for graduate faculty?

·  How and to what extent is the university addressing the need for graduate and research assistants?

·  Should there be separate, distinct expectations for research and publication for graduate faculty?

·  If so, how does the university intend to support graduate faculty research and publication efforts?

 

 

Recommendation: We propose that the academic vice president be invited to share his insight regarding these matters.