Meeting Was Called to Order by President Jay Clymer at 2:00 PM
MINUTES
Faculty Senate
October 5, 2007
Lynett Board Room
Present: Jay Clymer, Peter Hoffer, Sue Perlis, Sr. Maria Rose Kelly, Mary Alice Golden, Mike Foley, Sr. Margaret Gannon, Chris Fryer, Annette Fisher, Miao Hong, Carl Persing, Gail Cabral, Christine Kessen, Sarah Van Belle, Art Comstock, Charles DeCelles, Laurie Cassidy, Kathy Ruthkosky, Ed O’Brien, Sandi Graham, Sr. Joan Paskert, Bill Conlogue, Jane Strobino, Peter Cimbolic
Meeting was called to order by President Jay Clymer at 2:00 PM.
Dr. Cimbolic’s Address to the Senate
Dr. Peter Cimbolic expressed his desire to regularly attend Faculty Senate meetings. He discussed the new administration and his desire for transparency in his position. He feels that he would like to solicit Faculty Senate advice on issues and would like to be present to minimize rumors and at times to provide information we may need in order to make decisions. He feels that he is sensitive to the nature of some Faculty Senate business and will leave if anyone feels uncomfortable speaking with him present. He would like the Faculty Senate to consider his request and at least try it for a few months. If the Senate feels that this is not a good arrangement then he will leave. Dr. Cimbolic suggested that we contact faculty at Bellarmine to see what it was like to work with him in the Faculty Senate to help the Senate make a decision.
Dr. Cimbolic excused himself from the meeting so that discussion could be held.
Discussion of Dr. Cimbolic’s Remarks
Much discussion ensued following Dr. Cimbolics remarks. Sr. Margaret Gannon offered that Dr. Cimbolic is an administrator and has a responsibility to administration. With his tenure in the faculty it is hard to have his feet in both places – the Faculty Senate and the Administration. Since we don’t know him, Sr. Margaret felt it might be wise to invite him to a meeting when we need him. Jay Clymer agreed.
Further discussion by Kathy Ruthkosky centered on the by-laws of the Senate, specifically – do the by-laws prevent him from attending since he is a member of the administration. Art Comstock expressed concern for untenured faculty attending a meeting. He wondered about their feelings of freedom to express their opinions with a member of the administration present who has a key role in the rank and tenure process. Laurie Cassidy expressed the concern that if department meetings are recorded and available for administrative review, Faculty Senate may be the only safe place for untenured faculty to speak freely. Art Comstock mentioned that the Executive Council, a few years ago, offered to meet regularly with the VPAA but that never came to fruition. Christine Kesssen mentioned that she likes open communication and that a portion of the meeting should be available for both deans and the VPAA. She felt there should be a portion for open discussion with administration and a portion reserved for faculty discussion.
Carl Persing agreed with this position saying that it would provide some safety for untenured professors to express their opinions. Gail Cabral indicated that if the VPAA attends that this might present a skewed view to the deans in Academic Council, so perhaps they should attend as well. Ed O’Brien indicated that there seems to be a reaching out by administration to the Faculty Senate which may need testing out. Mike Foley agreed saying he would like to experiment with including the VPAA and deans by determining which agenda items would be open/closed.
Jay Clymer indicated that three models have been presented for including administration:
· Split Agenda
· Open Agenda
· Open Agenda with Votes Occurring After Administrative Members leave.
Art Comstock indicated that everything should be open until we have a vote. Sr. Margaret Gannon raised the question again of whether it would be the VPAA and the Deans or just the VPAA. She raised the question of whether the Deans would be permitted to speak as well as the VPAA. Sr. Margaret felt it was important that we don’t skip a layer of administration (the Deans) if we want open relationships with administration.
Jay Clymer summed up additional comments by Bill Conlogue, Art Comstock and Sarah Van Belle regarding attendance at Faculty Senate Meetings and Academic Council Meetings. Clymer suggested an open Faculty Senate meeting where the VPAA and the Deans would be invited, with a mutual agenda to consider. There would be open discussion throughout the meeting with the Faculty Senate saving time for further faculty discussion and voting. A time limit not to exceed two hours maximum for Faculty Senate Meetings would be set. The situation would be reviewed after a year to reconsider the effectiveness of the arrangement. In order to expedite clear communication between the faculty and the administration, the Faculty Senate would like to also request an exchange of representatives with Faculty Senate having a representative attend Academic Council meetings.
A discussion, begun by Kathy Ruthkosky, centered on whether or not we could deny Dr. Cimbolic from attending Faculty Senate Meetings given that he has tenure in a department. Gail Cabral felt that we might be confusing tenure with administration with faculty status. Jay Clymer indicated that we can always change the by-laws to permit administration to attend our meetings.
Art Comstock feels that the Faculty Senate should be as strong as possible. It needs to be our decision if Dr. Cimbolic and/or the Deans attend our meetings.
Jay Clymer felt we needed a month to mull this over so it will be revisited at the next meeting. Peter Hoffer agreed that we shouldn’t rush to make this change. Ed O’Brien indicated that in the meantime, we should ask Dr. Cimbolic about a Faculty Senate representative attending the Academic Council. Jay Clymer suggested that College Faculty Senate Representatives hold a meeting with their constituents about this before the next meeting.
Review of Minutes
The minutes of the April, 2007 meeting were tabled until the November 2, 2007 meeting. Minutes from both April,, 2007 and October 5, 2007 will be transmitted electronically for review prior to the November 2, 2007 meeting.
New Business
Discussion of “President Elect” position
Jay Clymer introduced the idea of a President Elect of Senate to facilitate leadership changeover. This position would give the President Elect a year to schedule and prepare for being the President – which includes scheduling a course reduction in the President’s teaching schedule to facilitate Senate business. Sr. Margaret Gannon indicated that this would be the last year for an overload for the President so we need to be prepared to reduce a teaching schedule well in advance. Jay Clymer indicated that we would quickly need to elect a President Elect for 2008/2009 before Fall schedules were needed by the Registrar’s Office. We would need to elect a President Elect in December 2007 to begin serving as President in August, 2008 through April, 2009. In April, 2008, we would need to elect a President Elect for the 2009/2010 academic year.
Motion to approve the plan by Sr. Maria Rose Kelly. Seconded by Mary Alice Golden. Vote was unanimous to move forward with the plan for a President Elect.
Review of ad-Hoc committees
Jay Clymer circulated a list of current ad-hoc committees of the Faculty Senate. Margaret Gannon indicated that the Faculty Senate Executive Council creates and retires committees. Discussion agreed that we should continue this practice. Regarding the specific committees on the list circulated by Jay Clymer, the following corrections/actions should be addressed:
Faculty Memorial Committee – add Peter Hoffer to the committee. Pete Spader would like to see this made a University Standing Committee so that the memorial is updated as necessary on a regular basis.
Committee for Revision of Workload Policy – Annette Fisher indicated that the committee did not meet during the 2006/2007 academic year. A proposal was turned over to the Deans during the Spring of 2006. Jay Clymer will contact Deb Hokien, Chairperson of the committee to determine if the committee should still exist at this point.
Committee on Grade Inflation – Ed O’Brien indicated that the committee hopes to complete business during the 2007/2008 academic year and then retire the committee.
Committee on Variability Procedures – Kathy Ruthkosky mentioned that Walter Broughton was also a member of this committee. She said that Sr. Mary Reap tabled the recommendations of this committee until Sr. Mary Reap heard from the Workload Policy Committee. Kathy Ruthkosky isn’t sure if the committee is still needed. Art Comstock feels that it should be revisited if we haven’t done anything yet. Kathy Ruthkosky feels this is a prime issue for the Deans and the VPAA to discuss with Faculty Senate.
Committee for 3-Year Pre-Tenure Review is still active. We need the list of members for this committee.
Faculty Parking Issues
Laurie Cassidy lead a discussion regarding parking violations on campus for faculty. Jay Clymer indicated that as President of the Faculty Senate he is on the Parking Committee. He mentioned there is a new policy to allow students to park for free near the Mellow Center. Also, there is a question about faculty being allowed to park in “commuter only” lots. Jay Clymer indicated that Joe Ross said there will be additional faculty only spots in the “Pit”. Laurie Cassidy spoke about allowing employees to park anywhere there is room. She feels that people who work here should not have to pay tickets or try to get their tickets waived for a variety of reasons. Art Comstock questioned why there are so many “commuter only” lots on campus. Sr. Maria Rose Kelly mentioned that there was a strong Commuter group on campus two years ago who lobbied for Commuter only parking. Art Comstock mentioned there appears to be an inconsistency with parking enforcement that needs more discussion in the Parking Committee. Peter Hoffer mentioned that there are new policies about where faculty can and cannot park. He said that you can only follow the rules if you know what the rules are. He wants a warning issued the first time before a ticket is issued. A recommendation was made that the Parking situation should be explored more thoroughly.
Problems with internal communication for faculty
The Faculty Senate Representative from CLAS suggested that Laurie Cassidy come to speak to the Senate about stewardship of instructional resources. She felt, that as a new faculty member she often received “the runaround” from different offices when she was trying to develop a program or apply for travel money. She feels that it is important to develop a Procedures Manual to examine the current policies and procedures and look for inconsistencies. Christine Kessen said it would be great to have this on-line, but Laurie Cassidy said that new faculty need a paper based version they could turn to with questions. Sr. Margaret Gannon suggested that Sr. Dolores Filicko could probably detail everything we were looking for. Laurie Cassidy mentioned that some current on-line forms contradict each other making it even more confusing for the new faculty member to get access to grant funds, etc. Jay Clymer suggested an ad-hoc committee to develop or find all of the procedures. Sr. Margaret suggested calling Sr. Dolores Filicko first. Laurie asked for information regarding rules for a variety of offices on campus such as IT, Maintenance, etc. Kathy Ruthkosky said that we really need a directory of offices, etc. because it is hard if not impossible for people to find on-line Marywood contacts. If you don’t know the person’s name from the Office you are trying to find – how do you find them?
It was suggested in the ensuing conversation that minimally we need information for:
· How to file expense vouchers
· How to run an event on campus
· Food Service
· Faculty Development Funds
Jay Clymer will send an email to get input from the faculty on what their needs are. We will have future discussion on the development of the manual.
Old Business
Report on new Faculty Orientation
Sandi Graham discussed the new faculty orientation that was held in an intensive three day session, this new academic year. Comments were that it was very thorough. Sr. Margaret Gannon arranged for a tour of Lackawanna County. Additional meetings will be arranged for the new faculty through December to address additional issues:
· October - Meghan Cruciani will be discussing advising.
· November - Human Resources will discuss flexible benefits including TIAA/CREF.
· December - the Deans will discuss FARs so that expectations will be clear.
Sr. Margaret Gannon commended Sandi Graham’s children at the great job they did putting the packets together for new faculty. She also said that pictures of the new faculty will be up on the Faculty Senate website soon. Jay Clymer commended all on a great itinerary. Sr. Margaret Gannon said the entire file was sent to Dr. Cimbolic. She said that the Faculty Senate agreed to improve the faculty orientation process but it was his responsibility to continue it in the future. She felt very strongly that Faculty Senate should not inherit this responsibility.
Update on pre-tenure review
Carl Persing indicated that the committee didn’t really know where to go since different colleges have different deans with different descriptions of what to include in pre-tenure review. For example there is confusion on what is a publication and how many are necessary. Kathy Ruthkosky asked who would be doing the review, a dean, department chair, rank and tenure committee – because there are lots of different opinions. Sr. Margaret Gannon remarked that Barbara Sadowski (Interim VPAA 2006/2007) thought we might be in violation of AAUP for not having a review process prior to tenure review. Sr. Margaret felt that whatever the Faculty Senate committee came up with should be sent to the Deans for their input.