Academic Council s2

ACADEMIC COUNCIL Minutes March 26, 2015

Present: Naser Z. Alsharif, Kirk W. Beisel, Olaf E. Bőhlke, J. Christopher Bradberry, Charles B. Braymen, A. Barron Breland, James Jay Carney, Lucinda R. Carroll, Stephen J. Cavalieri, D. Roselyn Cerutis, Bartholomew E. Clark, Thomas F. Coffey, Elizabeth F. Cooke, Cindy L. Costanzo, Marianne B. Culhane, Diane M. Cullen, William M. Duckworth, Robert W. Dunlay, Fidel Fajardo-Acosta, Pamela A. Foral, Kimberly A. Galt, Venkatesh Govindarajan, William R. Hamilton, Kim S. Hawkins, Anthony R. Hendrickson, William J. Hunter, Jim S. Jansen, Gail M. Jensen, Maorong Jiang, Bridget M. Keegan, Alicia K. Klanecky, Sandor Lovas, Mark A. Malesker, Philip J. Meeks, Martha E. Nunn, Edward R. O’Connor, Victor A. Padrón, Daniel L. Real, Sonia M. Sanchez, Anne M. Schoening, Margaret A. Scofield, Stephen Sieberson, David L. Sidebottom, Cindy S. Sloan, Heather Jensen Smith, David S. Vanderboegh, Marlene K. Wilken and Deniz Yilmazer-Hanke, Vivian Zhuang

Excused: Karl A. Bergmann (proxy Juan A. Asensio), Susan A. Calef (proxy, Michael R. Romero, S.J.), Erika L. Kirby (proxy, Gregory S. Bucher), Mark A. Latta (proxy, William P. Kelsey), and George W. McNary (proxy, J. Patrick Murray), Victoria Roche, (proxy, Paul Price)

Absent: Kalyana C. Nandipati, Martha E. Nunn, Pradeep Pallati, Sanjeev K. Sharma, Larry Siref

Guests: Cathy Carrico, Leann A. Crist, Chris J. Karasek, Katie Kelsey, Denise Y. LeClair, Kayman Nixon, Katie Wadas-Thalken

Call to Order: Dr. Edward R. O’Connor, Provost, called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.

Approval of the Agenda: Dr. O’Connor asked if there were any changes to the proposed agenda. There being none offered, the agenda was approved as distributed by general consent.

Reflection: Dr. Juan A. Asensio, School of Medicine, gave the reflection.

Approval of the Minutes of the Academic Council Meetings of February 26, 2015: Dr. O’Connor asked if there were any corrections of the minutes of the meeting of February 26, 2015. It was noted that the date of the minutes approved at that meeting should read “January 29, 2015” rather than “December 11, 2014.” With this change, the minutes were approved as distributed by general consent.

Report of the Provost: Dr. Edward R. O’Connor, Provost, said that admissions are going well and that the goal for 1060 freshmen will be met. He thanked the faculty and others for their work in this process. The professional schools are also on target with admissions. Law is making process and is ahead of last year and ahead of some national trends. He said that retention information is now available. He noted that students who graduate have a high success rate in moving on to the next phase of their life. St. Albert's day will celebrate research on the campus. About eighteen faculty and staff attended a conference at Loyola Chicago on the climate and sustainability; among other items, work done on spring breaks was brought up; there is an attempt for collaboration at the various schools; the regional approach is easier to handle than a national one with all twenty- eight Jesuit institutions involved. A question was raised about the status of the search for a Dean for the College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. O’Connor reported that the search is not complete, and the process is ongoing.

Report of the Interim President: Dr. J. Christopher Bradberry, Interim President, made a report. The Big East tournament went reasonably well; the teams played well and look forward to another year. At the last Town Hall meeting, there was an update on activities. Fr. Hendrickson has made several trips to Omaha and is working toward his inauguration as President next year; the inauguration is initially scheduled for October 1 and 2; Fr. Hendrickson wants a low-key celebration, with the emphasis on the institution rather than on him. He will probably reside in the upper suite in Heider Hall that is currently undergoing renovation. Fr. John P. Schlegel, S.J., former President, sends his regards to the Faculty; he is appreciative of his relationship with the faculty while he was here. The budget is being worked on now, although in reality it is an ongoing process. The budgets for next year should be ready for initial review and then approval in a couple of months. We now have a cooperative program in Physical Therapy with Regis University in Denver. There is need for more participation in the HLC visit; faculty participation is needed in this process; the HLC now requires such participation and looks for signs of participation and overall faculty involvement and climate at the institution.

Report of the Faculty Council: Dr. Bartholomew Clark, President of the University Faculty, made the report for the Faculty Council. He said that there was a report from the Faculty Salary Committee; there was a motion that was tabled until next meeting relative to the review of policies and motions that would be carried out by a sub-group of the Council before presentation to the full body. There was also a motion about having the annually submitted curriculum vitae being the standard mode of submission for faculty activities. Finally, a motion was made in the Faculty Council relative to the Strategic Plan. The motion is in essence a vote of no confidence in the plan; the exact wording was distributed to the members of the Academic Council who had not received one at the Faculty Council meeting.

Minutes of Academic Administrators Council: Dr. O'Connor asked if there were any questions on these. There were no questions. Reports from Standing and Presidential Committees: Americans with Disabilities Act Committee Ms. Denise Y. LeClair reported for the Committee and said that a written report had been submitted. She said that, in general, this is a Committee that looks at disability and accessibility. She reported on ways to report situations that need accommodations, and she encouraged those who need such to do so. The membership in the Committee is from across campus, consisting of students, staff, faculty members and legal experts. The committee establishes goals and increases awareness about the relevant issues; it has looked at the accessibility of the web to those with a disability; and it has produced an article to solicit the ADA issues. Ms. LeClair said that suggestions for the Committee’s website are welcome. The Committee is planning another symposium in collaboration with the Occupational Therapy program, they are working together with those with and without disabilities; and the work on having best practices in the area of their charge. There is a long list of places that need to be improved for accessibility, and the Committee undertakes walks around the campus to check for such needs. They collect data, usually on five-year intervals; and then analyze the data that were collected.

University Committee on Benefits Dr. Cathy A. Carrico presented the report for the Committee. She said that a written report had been submitted. She noted that the Committee had developed a policy on adoption, had dealt with access for Grey-backers to fitness centers; had reviewed benefit plans; had recommended same-sex domestic partners' benefits; and had reviewed tuition remission policies. She reported that the Committee oversaw a successful Benefits Fair. The Committee also grappled with a vacation donation policy; however, that is now tabled, although not fully dropped, while they look into establishing a catastrophic fund. The Committee ran a survey on immunizations and also looked at mission-time-off mainly for staff; Dr. Eileen Burke-Sullivan is working with them on this.

University Committee on Lectures Films and Concerts Ms. Katie M. Kelsey was present to make the report for the Committee. She went over the report, said that the Committee supports various events; has generally limited support to $1000 per event; and has been expending their funds on a wide diversity of events. There is a desire to involve the professional and graduate programs more fully in events. A question was raised as to how long has the committee had the $1000 limit? She said she was not sure how long it was but she said they could look into this. It was suggested from the floor that it has been at this level for at least ten years. She said that the Committee should probably look at this amount in the near future.

University Committee on the Status of Women Ms. Katie S. Wadas-Thalken and Ms. LeeAnn A. Crist presented the report for the Committee. The Committee has as its purpose to assure that equal consideration be given to women in all phases of University operation, to create an environment equally supportive of achievement by both men and women, and to ensure full participation and encouragement of contributions from women in pursuing the overall goals of the University. The Committee has sponsored a mentoring program with students, and the students have reached out and used this program. They have also held a fall forum and plan on continuing this tradition, with the theme varying each year. Student, faculty and staff participate in this. They also sponsor the Mary Lucretia and Sarah Emily Creighton Award each year. This year awards went to Ms. Megan Fuller, Dr. Diane M. Cullen and Mr. Jim Flanery. The Committee also works with the Lieben Center for Women and with the Women in Science Committee. They have also worked with Athletics. They are working with the faculty members in Arts and Sciences to try to adapt the Parental Leave Policy to be more faculty-friendly. They also maintain a list-serve; if there are any issues along these lines that need attention or if anyone wishes to be on the list-serve, contact Ms. Wadas Tahlken.

Update on the Faculty Salaries Committee: Dr. William M. Duckworth reported for the Committee. The Committee has met, mainly on metrics. The Committee has discussed the need for discussions with Chairs and Deans. Each College and School is working on the salaries from the perspective of its own area. Each College/School will assess what amount of money is needed to reach the median income level within that area. A question was raised as to whether the Committee was getting the adequate information. The response was that there was not sufficient information being provided to proceed. It was noted that the work within the Colleges and Schools varied on this, with some working on it and others not yet moving at full speed with the task. A question was asked about the prospects for getting the information. The response was that this is not known. The Committee members have expressed a desire for pie-charts, tables or other presentation of data that would help assess the picture of where we stand in relation to various discrete aspects of the budget, expenses, and income sources. Even the aggregate numbers would be a starting point; though the Committee will probably have to drill down deeper once those data are available. The Committee has asked for such data, but have not received helpful or meaningful data to this point. It was suggested that the Committee make recommendations, but it cannot proceed to do so with the data provided so far. Dr. O'Connor said that the needed information would be provided. There is a need to use the salary amount as separate from other stipends, though all of this information in the aggregate will be needed. It was also noted that for faculty with administrative appointments, a disaggregation of their administrators’ stipends from their faculty-line-based salaries is essential to the process in order to avoid an artificial inflation of the faculty-only salary component in the study. A question was raised about whether the information can be provided. A follow-up question was asked about exactly what information was needed. The Provost said that if specific requests are sent to him, the information will be provided to the Committee.

Faculty Leadership Participation in HLC: Dr. Bradberry addressed this in the Interim President Report.

Announcements: There were no announcements.

Old Business: There was no old business.

New Business: Dr. Bradberry asked what the process would be in regard to the Motion on the Strategic Plan passed by the Faculty Council. It was noted that a resolution is not necessarily an action motion. The actual motion appears as a part of a report to the Faculty Council. The Academic Council, while it may take up the motion, is not required to do so. Dr. Bradberry said that there were serious issues mentioned in the resolution. He said that he needs to hear more about what needs to be done about the resolution. Dr. Clark said that he heard serious concern expressed by the faculty members on the Strategic Plan as it is proceeding and being implemented; some believe that the University is being taken in directions that are not in harmony with its basic mission. The motion conveys the general message of what was discussed. Eventually there will be a need for specifics, as the items in the resolution are vague. Dr. Bradberry said that the Resolution, if actuated, would be problematic. It was noted that there are impacts on the well being of the University whether we stop the plan or continue the plan. There is a need for more information about the plan. There is a serious concern about the language of a "new culture" and the language of “culture change” without the plan stating specifically what is being changed to what; the Plan itself is vague, and thus the motion is vague. Much of the language in the plan needs to be clarified. The language is that of the corporate world, and in many ways, it is not in harmony with educational goals. Dr. Bradberry asked what one needed to do to address this. It was suggested that the process adopted by Saint Louis University was a much better model for proceeding. It was suggested that when one sets to work under a vague threat of changing the way one does business to a corporate model of doing business or going bankrupt, then one ends up with a plan such as the one we have. It was said that we must look at the vision and the mission that the plan offers, and the mission is clear: Jesuit and Catholic identity. There is a need to have a financial base to achieve one's mission. We need better margins to improve the overall institution. Dr. Bradberry asked what the specific things are that we need to do at this point. He said that financial aid for students would need to stop, if we stopped the plan. He asked how we would get resources and he said that the shared services initiative is working and that the staff reduction program has helped lower expenses. He said that we need to grow the student body, or we will have serious issues to face, and that growth is necessary for the well- being of the institution. It was suggested that there is no clear idea of the costs of administration and the costs of staff and the other expenses, even in the aggregate. The issue of faculty retirement was raised; Dr. Bradberry said that a Committee has been looking into this issue, but the report on a faculty buy-out has not been completed. A concern was also raised about faculty members who have not been replaced over time. There is a Committee working on salaries, and the salary data from a year and a half ago is being updated to see how we have progressed. Dr. Bradberry said that if we stopped the Strategic Plan, we would have to stop the plan for salary increase. It was noted that the faculty has not been shown enough of the plan to make sense of it. One should start by offering full documentation on the Strategic Plan, in text format, not in power-point bullets or from scattered links on the web. The faculty needs clear numbers from the plan rather than vague ideas. Dr. Bradberry said not all information can be made public. It was suggested that even the aggregates data are not being provided. Dr. Bradberry said that the Town Hall Meetings have focused on the Strategic Plan. It was noted that there are some good ideas in the plan, but the entire plan is amorphous; and if it is amorphous, then there is a problem in knowing where one is going. The financial issues are important; more money is good, but we have chosen to do undertake this planning in a way that is more rapid than is needed. It was noted that the institution would be in trouble, if it did not act; however, it is acting already on many fronts. It was suggested that the important point is that the faculty needs some oversight over the Plan. The Faculty Council is saying that there is excessive business-like oversight in an environment where this degree of oversight is counter-productive. Dr. Bradberry said that there was a lot of input in this process by faculty and staff and that, while most plans end up being a wish list, this one is much more process-oriented. It was noted that there is a lack of openness about what is in the plan. The faculty members care a lot about what they do and most would not want to be administrators; the most important roles for faculty members us are teaching, research, service and mission. One problem with the Plan is a huge disconnect between what the administrative group thinks and what the faculty group thinks. There is a tremendous communication gap evident with this plan. Simply put, the faculty does not believe that the faculty has been properly consulted on the plan. Dr. O’Connor said that Dr. Hunter is now sitting on the Enterprise Team and Dr. Sieberson is now sitting on the President's Council. There is a need to incorporate the operations with the rest of the institution; resource allocation must be in harmony with the mission. The Board has to be in agreement with the Plan. The budget issues need to be addressed. More information will be provided. Salary information will be provided. There needs to be more robust shared governance. It was noted there is a need to have the section on the Presidential Search restored and a need to have the fiat clause removed from the presidential prerogatives. Dr. Bradberry said he would consider this. It was suggested that a paper document would add a level of comfort to the planning. It was noted that there were five highlighted objectives in the plan: revenue, cash flow, endowment, student outcome, and enrollment; while these are important, they do not take into consideration the broader aspects of the institution beyond finance. Finance is important but needs context. There was faculty participation in the early stages of the plan, but they need much more meaningful participation in the ongoing process. Faculty members are concerned about faculty governance over the processes; lacking this oversight, the finances are often apparently driving the academics. Dr. O’Connor noted that student research has flourished here. It was noted from the floor that we need to support the faculty financially as well. There is concern about a plan that talks about vague transition to a “new culture” and “new operating model” without giving specifics. A question was raised about what in particular needed fixing in the overall Jesuit, Catholic culture. Dr. O’Connor said that higher education has been a highly internally focused operation, and it needs to become more externally focused and listen to the message of students as to what they need. He said that there is a need to focus on groups like first-generation students coming to Creighton. The idea is not to abandon the Catholic and Jesuit identity. It was suggested that the Partners in Mission Program has helped in integrating mission into the teaching. It was suggested that John Delaney’s Piloting Strategy book and its on-the-bus-or-under-it philosophy did not get the process off to a good start. Public recognition for contributing to the plan should not be separate from accomplishing the real mission of the institution: teaching, research and service. The mission is probably safe, but one may pursue one good and lose another. When undertaking changes like this and when continuing to pile on demands for compliance, there may be some financial economies, but one must not overlook the value of good will lost. It was suggested that one should work together on this and not against each other. It was suggested that an entire meeting be devoted to the Strategic Plan.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas F. Coffey, Ph.D. Acting Secretary, Academic Council