Academic Council s3

ACADEMIC COUNCIL MINUTES February 25, 2016

Present: Juan A. Asensio, Samuel C. Augustine, Thomas P. Berry, Charles B. Braymen, ), Murray J. Casey, Stephen J. Cavalieri, D. Roselyn Cerutis, Hardeep K. Chehal, Bartholomew E. Clark, Christina A. Clark, Thomas F. Coffey, Elizabeth F. Cooke, Diane M. Cullen, William M. Duckworth, Kimberly A. Galt, William R. Hamilton, Anthony R. Hendrickson, Daniel S. Hendrickson, S.J., Jim S. Jansen, Gail M. Jensen, Bridget M. Keegan, Erika L. Kirby, Alicia K. Klanecky, Sandor Lovas, Paul E. McGeal, George W. McNary, Kelly K. Nystrom, Edward R. O’Connor, Victor A. Padrón, M. Ross Romero, S.J., Anne M. Schoening, David L. Sidebottom, Stephen C. Sieberson, Cindy S. Slone, Catherine M. Todero, David S. Vanderboegh , Michel Wagner, Vivian Zhuang.

Excused: Naser Z. Alsharif (proxy, Maorong Jiang), J. Christopher Bradberry (proxy, Brenda Coppard), A. Barron Breland (proxy, Matt Averett), Gregory S. Bucher (proxy, Jeannie Schuler), and Mark A. Latta (proxy, Sonia Sanchez).

Absent: Casey D. Beran, James Jay Carney, Robert W. Dunlay, Fidel Fajardo-Acosta, Venkatesh Govindarajan, Kim S. Hawkins, William J. Hunter, Annie E. Knierim, Sumeet K. Mittal, Edward A. Morse, Kalyana C. Nandipati, Martha E. Nunn, Pradeep K. Pallati, Larry Siref, and Deniz Yilmazer-Hanke.

Guests: Mary Ann Danielson, Ginteras Duda, Kayman Nixon.

Call to Order: Dr. Edward R. O’Connor called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. in the Skutt Center Ballroom.

Approval of the Agenda for the Present Meeting: Dr. Edward R. O’Connor asked if there were any changes for the agenda. There being none, the agenda was adopted by general consent.

Reflection: Dr. Bridget M. Keegan offered the reflection.

Approval of the Minutes of the Academic Council Meeting of January 28, 2015: The minutes were approved by general consent. Report of the President: President, Fr. Daniel S. Hendrickson, S.J., started his report with a discussion of campus engagement opportunities he has held. He met with the Schlegel Center for Service and Justice (SCS&J) core team about plans for spring break, and the leadership opportunities these trips provide the students. He held a lunch with faculty, and received good comments from that encounter. He has also held a lunch with staff and attended a Greek community in-service meeting; he communicated his message to those constituencies. He is continuing his convocation themes and installation initiatives and additional action items, reminding the body that they were diversity, sustainability, service learning and the humanities. He introduced the new planning process, the Area Examen; he is asking that we do this process in our home areas. More information will be coming on this. Part of his conversations have centered on asking people around campus to engage in the Examen process, reminding them that the focus is on their local or department area. Next he discussed the CU Global Initiatives Program (CGI). Preproposals were due today; he is anxious to see the proposals; they will be vetted by the (CGI) committee and may be sent back to be retooled to best fit the program. He has been travelling on behalf of the University and has been to events in Naples, FL, Phoenix AZ, and Washington DC. At those events he has met with alums and benefactors; Rick Virgin has accompanied him; most of the events had good crowds of 200 plus persons. He has enjoyed the meetings and talking about Creighton. Young alumni, age 30 or so have expressed how happy they are about the presentations. He has tried to have varied presentations and not just usual bullet points. There are two videos that show the CU experience. He has started a CHI Health (CHI) initiative, creating a committee with himself, Dean Robert Dunlay, Dr. Michael White, the Provost, Board Chair Mike McCarthy and Dan Burkey. The purpose of the committee is to update our relationship with CHI. The group has been very helpful in helping to prepare for the meetings with the CHI CEO on issues. Dean Dunlay has voiced CU Medical Center frustrations. There were some strategy sessions in January, focusing on two issues: medical faculty compensation and medical academic research. The CHI Affiliation Council needs to be reset. It is not accomplishing its purpose. The new structure will include himself, Dr. Cliff Robertson from CHI, the Provost, and Dr. White. The compensation agreement and initiatives on research are primary goals. The previously announced CHI delay in construction projects may not happen. The University Board of Trustees met last Friday. Business items included approval for the School of Dentistry to fundraise to build its new building, with targets to be met set before starting the building. There is an overall need for Creighton to have a major capital campaign. The campaign must be comprehensive; it has not started yet, but he is looking for the board to take a leadership role and assist with the fundraising. He is enjoying his relationship with the new Board of Trustees. The faculty reception was received very positively. There was engagement in the Board’s Committees, including a presentation by a research panel, Dr. Clark’s presentation on the 2013 CU Climate Survey and a presentation by the Kenefick Chair in Humanities. The External Affairs Committee heard a panel of faculty on its marketing thoughts. The Student Life and Mission Committee heard presentations on ILAC, SCSJ, and a presentation by a panel of students, alumni and staff. There was a tour of the University libraries, which will be included as a future campaign item, and the Honors Program was discussed. It was brought up that there had been a question about the CHI Initiative brought up in Faculty Council. There is a need to identify key issues the University should address with CHI. The Faculty Council felt that a conversation on these key issues with faculty feedback is important; the Faculty Council cannot serve as a spokesperson for the School of Medicine faculty, but has been hearing at times reports that have been troubling. In particular, the issue of length of time for approval of research projects by the newly instituted Institutional Review Board housed at CHI was reported to Father as a serious obstacle to research endeavors. It has been reported that the length of time for approval for a research project has run over 120 days; it is generally believed that the maximum acceptable length of time for such a process should not exceed 60 days. In the past, the turn- around in-house has been known to hover around 14 days; such fast response is necessary both to acquiring external grants and to carrying out research in an institution that is based on a semester system; in addition, the costs for this review process have become excessive in the eyes of some and is reported to be around five thousand dollars per grant. There have been other issues relative to compensation; basically, the compensation structure is such that it rewards only clinical activity to the detriment of the basic and traditional teaching, research and service aspects of the University. There is need to get feedback from the grass-roots level; there is an impression that money is driving the endeavor. Father said that this discussion on this key issues had not come up in other listening session.

Report of the Provost: Dr. Edward R. O’Connor started his report with an enrollment update. For the first time in Creighton University history, applications for admission to the University have topped 10,000. Roughly 500 students came to Special Programs day in February to meet and interview with faculty, alumni and current students for the Dean’s Fellows, Honors and other scholarship programs. Students also learned about the Center for Undergraduate Research and Scholarship, the Creighton EDGE and the Global Engagement Office. Academic qualifications remain consistent with past classes. Over 100 students who came were applying for Heider College of Business and Arts and Sciences Dean’s Fellows Scholarships. He noted that the Academic Council Meeting on April 21st will be held in the Skutt Ballroom. The Academic Council meeting on March 17, 2016 will revert to the old location and meeting times. He addressed the question on future Council of Deans meetings, they will be Monday March 21, 2016, no meeting in April and Monday May 16, 2016. Next he discussed Review of Deans. The issue of the review of Deans, as outlined in the University Statutes was discussed at the ECAC. It was generally agreed that the Faculty Council supports this statutory review. The review should be carried out as specified in the following section of the University Statutes (Article III, Section 2.A.5): “A performance review of the Dean shall be conducted annually by the Provost, with extensive evaluation every three years by the Provost aided by input from faculty, staff members, and students of the respective School or College in accordance with the bylaws of each School or College. He noted that he is looking for a “best practices model,” and that some Deans are reviewed by half of their Faculty each year. He announced that we welcome Melinda Stoner as our new University registrar. Ms Stoner begins her position with Creighton on March 14. She brings with her a wealth of experience in higher education, including 12 years as a registrar. Ms. Stoner currently serves as the director of records and registration at Nebraska Methodist College. Prior to Nebraska Methodist, she served as the registrar for Dana College. He asked that others join him in welcoming Ms. Stoner to our Creighton community. The committee searching for a new VP for Finance is meeting on Monday. He understands they will be looking at 10-12 candidates, to be reduced to 6-8 for hotel interviews and eventually 3-4 to be brought on campus for visits later this spring. The hire date is set for July 1. Next he addressed the Faculty Activity Database questions. There is direction on this in the Faculty Handbook, page 40, Section O 7. It states there that Personal information in University data banks (personally identifiable information), as distinguished from the information in the individual files in the office of the Provost and in Human Resources, is to be strictly confidential. This is management information to be used for studies, payroll, mailings, and the like. Only appropriate administrators and staff who must work with this data shall have access. There is a policy of security of data in place. He addressed the staff and faculty pre-employment background check procedure in place since January 2016. The standard background check practice for staff and faculty hires includes the following checks:  County Criminal Record Search to include: Name Search, Residential History, and Social Security Number Search  Federal Criminal Record Search  National Sex Offender Registry  Office of the Inspector General (OIG) (Required for employees involved in Health Care)  EPLS (Excluded Parties List System) Additional checks may be completed based solely on the job responsibility requirements:  Credit Report: Only positions that require handling of cash/funds/credit cards  Driving Record: Only positions that require driving a company vehicle as primary function of the position  License Verification: Only positions that have a licensure requirement He mentioned that Father had addressed CHI in his report and then ended his report.

Report of the Faculty Council: Dr. Clark reported on the Faculty Council meeting that occurred one week ago. The Faculty Council discussed how suitable the Skutt space is and noted that room is too large and the number of microphones was inadequate. Faculty had expressed a concern in losing two Thursdays a month to meetings. The Faculty addressed the Report it received on the President’s Council. There were questions raised about the cost of the Gallup proposal; a concern was also expressed about a potential conflict of interest with a Board of Trustee member who was a Gallup employee and the University using Gallup’s services. A question was raised about how Gallup obtained its qualifications to do the proposal in an academic environment. Faculty discussed the need for review of Deans, and they want to be consulted in the process. There was a motion of the Faculty Commons that was passed unanimously; that will be raised at the next Academic Council meeting. Many of the CHI issues raised early were also raised at Faculty Council. The Program Review Policy of the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies Program and its discontinuance were raised. The process of the search for a Director for that program was questioned. There were concerns raised about some of the reviews; there is an impression that decisions are made before the review is made. The rationale of the decision for some of the reviews has not been communicated down to the Department involved. There remains a need for a resolution for the four motions previously passed by the Academic Council. The Faculty Council discussed the election of faculty members to the Graduate Board. It was previously communicated that the Graduate Board was going to discuss these questions – a comment from the floor suggested that a subgroup of the Graduate Board was working on the election questions. The Faculty Council was interested in updates on both the VP for Finance and Registrar searches. This ended the report of the President of the University Faculty.

Minutes of Academic Administrators’ Council: There were no comments.

Reports from Standing Committees:

HLC Committee Dr. O’Connor asked if there were any questions about the report included with the Agenda. It was noted that the HLC visit is April 10-11, 2017. There were no questions.

University Committee on Student Discipline Dr. O’Connor asked if there were any questions about the report. There were no questions.

University Committee on Student Life Policy Dr. O’Connor asked if there were any questions about the report. There were no questions.

University Committee on Americans with Disabilities Dr. O’Connor asked if there were any questions about the report. There were no questions.

Program Review Policy: Dr. Jensen added to the information provided with the agenda, noting that in the Masters of Liberal Studies Program (MLSP), 50 percent of the students were Creighton employees. When the Director, Dr. White, stepped down, Dr. Tracey Lavelle stepped in. At that time there were other issues, including the demand that the program made on faculty resources, the challenge in finding a director, and finding new students; because of this, it was decided to suspend the program. One of the challenges is moving to a flexible adult-learning model. The MLSP had not gone through the standards and they could not identify a champion from the faculty. A question was raised about the outreach of the program and no push to find a director, and how this was a disappointment given the positive reviews. Dr. Jensen mentioned that the Master in Ministry also came along and it siphoned off some of the students. It was noted that the MLSP was a good program for Creighton. Having Staff take the program was a good fit with the University Mission. Programs like the MLSP should be encouraged; other Jesuit schools have such a program. Dr. Jensen noted that the MLSP was competing with the Master of Leadership and the Werner institute. Our programs need to meet adult-learner needs. A question was raised about the column on Action Items. There needs to be better direction given to the review committees. There is a problem with the definition of “strengthen” in the report. All programs have “strengthen” as comments from the review team. There is a disconnect among a number of action items. Dr. Jensen noted that overall this is a sound plan to get targeted resources to address problems in a program. This is not a predetermined-outcome process where programs go to die. The process has integrity. A question was raised about whether making money was one of the goals or if it was equal to the other goals in the review process. There is a question about academic worth versus marketing value. Dr. Jensen noted that enrollment is a factor, programs need a critical mass. There are issues with program outcomes with interdisciplinary programs. We need to design something that fits contemporary needs. They want other items besides money to be part of the review of outcomes. Dr. Duda noted that there is a misperception of what they are doing. The process requires a self-study, an outside review, evidence of student learning and the quality of the program. The Committee’s job is not to do another review, it is to organize the information on the review and to raise flags at the Dean and Provost level. This is an ongoing conversation. The Provost said that we look at the quality of the program and we look at revenue, but it is not only revenue that is used to decide the worth of a program. We do things well but need to find a balance. It was noted that there is a schedule of programs to review on the website out to 2022. Program review is on a rolling cycle. Every program will be reviewed. New programs are added to the review schedule. A comment was raised about whether there is consideration to close down programs; there are efforts to create programs, then close wasteful ones. Some programs suffer from mistakes, should we close programs based on these mistakes? The Provost closed discussion on this item at this point.

Update on CHI: Dr. O’Connor noted that this item was addressed in the President’s report.

Faculty Commons: Dr. O’Connor noted that this item would be a future agenda item.

Announcements: There were no announcements

Old Business: There was no old business.

New Business: There was no New Business.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

George W. McNary, J.D. Secretary Academic Council