Kalyana C. Nandipati, Pradeep K. Pallati, Sanjeev K. Sharma, Larry Siref

FACULTY COUNCIL

Minutes

December 11, 2014

Present:

Naser Z. Alsharif, Kirk W. Beisel, Olaf E. Bőhlke, 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, Diane M. Cullen, William M. Duckworth, Fidel Fajardo-Acosta, Pamela A. Foral, Kimberly A. Galt, Venkatesh Govindarajan, William R Hamilton, Kim S. Hawkins, William J. Hunter, Maorong Jiang, Alicia K. Klanecky, Sandor Lovas, Mark A. Malesker, George W. McNary, Philip J. Meeks, Martha E. Nunn, Victor A. Padrón, Daniel L. Real, Sonia M. Sanchez, Anne M. Schoening, Margaret A. Scofield, David L. Sidebottom, Stephen Sieberson, Cindy S. Slone, Heather Jensen Smith, David S. Vanderboegh, Deniz Yilmazer-Hanke, Vivian Zhuang

Excused:

Susan A. Calef (proxy, Jinmei Yuan), Erika L. Kirby (proxy, Gregory S. Bucher), Marlene K. Wilken (proxy, Jos V.M. Welie)

Absent:

Kalyana C. Nandipati, Pradeep K. Pallati, Sanjeev K. Sharma, Larry Siref

Guests:

Juan A. Asensio, Terry L. Grindstaff, Michael D. Weston

Call to Order:

Dr. Bartholomew E. Clark, President of the University Faculty, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Approval of the Agenda:

There being no objection, the agenda was approved by general consent.

Approval of the Minutes of the Faculty Council Meeting of November 20, 2014

There being no objection, the minutes were approved by general consent.

Review of the Minutes of the Academic Council Meeting of October 30, 2014

Dr. Clark asked if there were any comments and noted that changes, if any, need to be raised at Academic Council. There were no corrections suggested.

Review of the Minutes of Academic Administrators Council

A question was raised about what happened at the rest of the meeting, as there was only one item of business.

University Governance

It was noted that Proposal on University Governance seemed to address a University of considerably less complexity than Creighton; it is believed that this proposal had its origin in a system that Fr. Lannon had put in place at St. Joseph’s University, which has less diversity of Colleges and Schools. It was suggested that the burden of University governance should fall primarily on the tenured faculty; while this plan would give nominal representation to staff, this plan would ultimately not be in the interest of any of the parties involved in the governance of the University; at the very least, it would dilute the voice of the faculty at the institution. A question was raised on the effective difference between tabling the motion or not passing the motion. After discussion of the best approach, it was moved and seconded to approve the proposal presented to the Faculty Council by the Staff Advisory Council (SAC), working with the Creighton Students Union (CSU). It was noted that students and staff members had worked over time on this proposal, and it was sent to the Council on November 12. It was suggested that the proposal does not address the most pressing needs facing the University, if the University is to move forward. It was noted that there is already a Staff Advisory Council in place, and that some of the complaints about the workings of that body could be solved through other means. One of the complaints about the SAC is that the current body has not addressed issues put forward by staff members; plus, some staff members may be frustrated because of a lack of job protection, if they push an issue. Overall, the interests of the Faculty and the Staff overlap only on certain Human resources Issues; the Staff does not engage in the direct delivery of academic services, and Faculty members do not face the same issues as support personnel on many fronts. It was suggested that Students, Staff and Faculty would be poorly served by being put together in the proposed body; there are items that are unique to staff and to faculty only; however, there should be occasional meetings between the Faculty and Academic Councils, SAC and even CSU, to deal with common issues. It is necessary to work together but not necessarily in a single structure to push forward the needs of staff and students. It was suggested that the three groups meet together regularly to strategize on common concerns. The current proposal simply does not meet the current needs of the institution. It was suggested that the document, as such, was not accurately worded and referred to bodies, such as the President’s Council, that have not been defined in a stable document. After the discussion, the motion failed by unanimous voice vote.

Resolution on Faculty Salaries

Dr. Clark reported that a Committee will be formed with a large carry-over from the previous Salary Committee and that the names will be announced at the Academic Council meeting. The Committee will deal with historical data on Creighton raises, with CPI data for relevant years, and with establishing a time-line for arriving at median salary.

Resolution on Provost Report on CAFR/Dismissals

Dr. Clark noted that, at the November meeting of the Academic Council, the Provost had provided the report requested of him. He said that the resolution reflected a belief that the Provost had been given bad advice and that he had not questioned this advice properly; it also reflected a desire to move on to other matters. There was discussion of one line of text in the first of the two resolves. It was agreed to insert the word “the” after the word “assiduously” to avoid ambiguity; there was no objection to this.

Resolution on the Report of the Provost in Response to the Resolution on the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility

Whereas, the events surrounding the informal inquiry by the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (CAFR) into the dismissal case of a faculty member have raised serious questions in the minds of members of the Faculty Council concerning adherence to procedure by certain administrators and advisors who apparently neither served nor informed the Provost well in their handling of this case; and

Whereas, the Provost has responded to the resolution of the Faculty Council, demonstrating that he had been given inadequate information, while offering an explanation of his perspective on the handling of the case, along with an expression of regret and a pledge to rigorously follow proper procedures in the future; and

Whereas, the Faculty Council still harbors serious doubts as to whether the procedures prescribed in the Faculty Handbook were followed properly in the aforementioned case; and

Whereas, the Faculty Council must reserve to itself and to the CAFR the right to investigate the principles involved in the aforementioned case in greater detail; and

Whereas, the Faculty Council wishes to show good will and overall faith in the sincerity of the Provost's apology and his agreement to be attentive to prescribed detail in the future; and

Whereas, the Faculty Council does not believe it productive to continue to dwell on the demonstrable differences between a well-documented timeline and a timeline presented by the Provost; and

Whereas, the Faculty Council believes that it is important that it show a sign of good faith in moving forward with the Provost in working on myriad matters affecting the University; therefore, be it

Resolved, the Faculty Council accept the sincere apology of the Provost, his expressions of regret and his pledge to apply assiduously the prescribed proper procedures in the future; and

Resolved, that the Faculty Council request that the Provost, Deans and General Counsel work with the Committee on Faculty Dismissals and the CAFR in order to gain an improved understanding of how to appropriately apply, both in sequence and in substance, the provisions of Article III, Section H.5 of the Faculty Handbook.

The motion was moved and seconded. Dr. Clark said that he had told the Provost that he should hold those who advised him badly accountable and that those who had so advised him should be admonished. The procedural issues surrounding the dismissal had been clearly carried out in a flawed manner. In any event, the Council is not considering the substance of the case but the adherence to procedure in the case. He noted that the end does not justify the means. Thus, even if it were appropriate to dismiss the faculty member, the rules for doing so must be followed. It was generally agreed that the motion was a fitting way to go and that the motion was well worded. This motion does not let anyone off the hook, and it puts someone we must work with on notice that he must work with us in the prescribed ways. There is a long list of issues that need to be handled, and this issue must be put to rest. In response to questions on whether there was substance to the issue, it was asserted by several people that there are well documented differences between what was done and what should have been done. The need for administrators to follow procedures and procedural issues themselves may be revisited in the future. While it is not certain that this is the optimal way to proceed, it was asserted that this represents a reasonable way and one that has been vetted by a small working group. Among other issues, one needs to prepare the way for the new President of the University, and the Faculty will need to work with the Provost during and after the transition to the new President, and Faculty must be able to put trust in him. This resolution will serve as an important signal to administrators and will set the tone for building a good working relationship with the new President. There is also a need for a code of ethics for the administrators in the University Statutes, to exert upward pressure to fix problems in collaboration with the Faculty. This resolution offers a method to put this issue behind us and move forward. The motion to approve the resolution passed by unanimous voice vote.

Research Position Letter from CHI’s CEO – implications for all Creighton Faculty

It was noted that a letter concerning research was sent by the Chief Executive Officer of Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI), Dr. Cliff Robertson, to some members in the Health Sciences Schools. This letter deals with areas that have huge potential impact on the research of faculty members. It was noted that there are many problems with the wording of the letter itself as well as with its substance. Without substantial revamping, this letter, if applied, would impede collaboration by faculty members at Creighton on research. Among other issues, there is the matter of intellectual property. In essence, CHI cannot own all Creighton work, especially where there is collaboration among entities, despite assertions to that effect. The Institutional Research Board (IRB) process is, in essence, sidestepped or bifurcated. It also appears that a single person, Dr. Stephen Lanspa, would have full responsibility for research compliance. It was suggested that CHI may be intending to use Creighton’s IRB, despite the wording in the letter; they are already using Creighton training methods. There is some question about where the indirect costs will be going. The processes outlined in the letter are not helpful for Creighton Faculty wanting to move forward with translational research. The overarching statement at the beginning of the letter moves well beyond the scope of the CHI sphere. In brief, the letter appears hastily composed. This is the only public document about CHI/Creighton research at the moment. The President has delegated the matter to the Dean of Medicine; however, there is little or no contact between the Dean and members of the School of Medicine on this and even less with members of the other College and Schools. For several years, faculty members have been told that the person to turn to on this research is the Dean of the School of Medicine. At the same time, the person named in the latest letter is Dr. Lanspa. This issue has implications for programs outside the School of Medicine, such as Medical Anthropology, where CHI would then be in charge of a program housed in the College of Arts and Sciences. This wording stands in the way of long-term research plans. Faculty members from the School of Medicine have not been sufficiently involved in developing research processes, and this is not the primary field for Dr. Lanspa on whom the responsibility has been placed. There is a lot more communication and collaborative work that needs to be accomplished here. Nursing has not received any communication on the matters contained in the letter. It appears that no one has a full handle on this, and it is uncertain who knows what on this. There is a great concern among physicians, and some researchers have their projects on hold at the moment because of the lack of clarity on who is in charge of which components of the research infrastructure. Such a delay is unacceptable. It is tough to advance a research agenda under these conditions, and it is tough to recruit new faculty members under these conditions. It is now easier to collaborate with researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center than with fellow CHI physicians. Several faculty members said that they were trying to move ahead, but things are not clear. There are issues of intellectual property. There is a need for constructive dialog. There a need for clarification. There is a desire to attract scholars, and this lack of clarity makes such recruitment difficult. It was suggested that a working group be formed to address this--at least in the short term. There is technical expertise needed to address or even to start to address the fundamental issues standing in the way of research at the moment. So far, academic input has not been welcome on this. It needs to be made a priority. The overall sentiment is that the money from faculty research is welcome, but faculty input is unwelcome; soon there will be neither input nor money. CHI does not appear to understand what an academic endeavor is. It is uncertain how they can be brought to this understanding. The research, if this issue is not addressed, will escalate to a major problem. There is a research opportunity here, but there is tremendous difficulty getting the message through. It is a matter of bringing knowledge to bear on this. There is a need for constructive engagement. It was agreed that interested faculty members would meet shortly after the conclusion of the Academic Council meeting to address the issue and to have a solution in place by February or March. This issue reaches beyond just Medicine. It was suggested that Dr. Lanspa be invited to the January meeting of the Councils, and that Dr. Dunlay should also be asked to present on this issue at the January Council meetings.