Faculty Senate Meeting

3/21/2000

 

Present: J. McLaughlin, A. Desrochers, N. Rolnick, P. Hajela, M. Hanna, R. Parsons, K. Fortun, A. Kapila, K. Craig, A. Van Epps, P. Quinn, R. Diwan, P. Boyce, R. Leifer, K. Jansen

 

Absent: R. Norsworthy, S. Anderson-Gold, S. Derby, J. Haddock

 

Guests: G. Gabriele [for Doyle Daves]

 

Agenda

P&T and P&R Committee Appointments

Discussion of Planning Process
Election Slate

Discussion of Provost Candidates (off record)

 

M. Hanna: We are going to wait on the Minutes to give the Presidentís office a little extra time to confirm their edits.First, weíll discuss appointments to the P&T and P&R Committees.

 

P&T and P&R Committee Appointments

At our last meeting, the Senate passed a motion not to replace the H&SS representative to the P&T for this term.A number of Senators, as well as members of the P&T, have contacted me and told me that they thought this was not a good idea.The Provostís office voiced concern.To respond, weíll have to retract the previous motion.

 

R. Parsons: I make a motion that we rescind the previous decision not to replace the H&SS representative on the P&T committee.Second: P. Hajela.

 

M. Hanna:All those in favor?Unanimous.

 

M. Hanna: We do have a replacement candidate, Professor Michael Zenzen, a philosopher in PP&CS.Professor Zenzen is willing and able to complete the remainder of David Hessís term.

 

P. Quinn: I make a motion that Professor Michael Zenzen replaces David Hess as the H&SS representative on P&T.Second: N. Rolnick.

 

M. Hanna:All in favor? Unanimous.

 

I have two nominees for the two open slots for the P&R committee.Ralph Noble has agreed to serve out the remainder of the term for H&SS, as well as to run for election for a position for the next three years.For this year, Ralph is Chair for the H&SS Faculty Council.

 

Randy Franklin is at NSF and so cannot serve out his term. Jim Kokernak, an Assistant Professor in Electric Power Engineering, has agreed to fill this slot.

 

J. McLaughlin: I do have some problem with having assistant professors on this committee; they have other responsibilities which means they donít come to meetings.

 

K. Fortun: I donít think the failure to come is a function of people being assistant professors.

 

P. Hajela: I do think that it is important that there be representations from all levels, particularly on a committee such as P&R.And I have spoken to Jim and he is both committed and aware of the responsibilities.

 

M. Hanna: Can we confirm Ralph Nobleís appointment?

 

R. Parsons: I make a motion to confirm Ralph Nobleís appointment.Unanimous.

 

And a second motion to confirm Jim Kokernak from the School of Engineering, to fill out Randy Franklinís term.

 

M. Hanna: Discussion?

 

A. Desrochers: Does anyone know if Jim has spoken to his chair?

 

R. Leifer: He is a big kid who has to make this decision himself.

 

A. Kapila: I agree with this, though I am sympathetic to the argument that faculty at the junior level probably should be spending their time otherwise.I am concerned, however, about the apparent ad hoc way we go about replacing positions.

 

M. Hanna: We called people and relied on the insights of our colleagues.

 

A. Kapila: And you just take the first offer?

 

M. Hanna: Most often, there arenít a lot of choices.

 

Can we call the questions?In favor, 11; opposed, 1; abstentions, 1.

 

Discussion of Planning Process

J. McLaughlin: I just came from a meeting of the P&R committee where we discussed President Jacksonís invitation to comment on the proposed planning process.We took on the goal of making a plan for the review of the performance plans.The memo Iíve just circulated is the result of the discussion.When finalized, this will come from the Faculty Senate.

 

N. Rolnick: As I understand the performance plans, they are the rationale for department budgets.It sounds here as though the Senate could look at a Schoolís performance plans and then go to the Dean and tell them to change it.

 

P. Quinn: and the Deans say no way.

 

N. Rolnick: It sounds as though we are trying to gate keep, where we have no gate.

 

M. Hanna:It does seem that there is a significant value added, for little cost.Because it brings things to light in a much more unified way than they have been before.

 

N. Rolnick: It sounds as thought the Senate is suggesting that the plans cannot move forward without their endorsement.

 

J. McLaughlin: The point is to have an opportunity for input when there is still an opportunity to make changes.It is a way to make a response to the plan in its entirety.

 

P. Quinn: It occurs to me that you might consider working on two levels.You might let the Deans know the importance of Faculty Senate involvement; becoming familiar with the plans of the different schools, and helping other faculty understand them.Second, is to work at the level of integration to help accelerate overlap.

 

J. McLaughlin: Are you saying that the semantics are not clear or that the document is not saying something you are happy with?

 

P. Quinn: I think you want to be very clear about your intent.The first point, I believe, is understanding and dissemination.The second is to operate as a sounding board for the administration about the integration plans.The individual plans are useless if they are not part of the whole.

 

J. McLaughlin: If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the Faculty Senate be inserted into the process at the point at which the different plans will be implemented.

 

In the first stage, as defined here, the value added is that we do make a written response, denoting what we think is a concern or really terrific.

 

P. Quinn: Let me tell you why I question that approach.Suppose part of the School of Architectureís plan deals with sonics.A physicist might be able to add some value to that part of the plan. But there is some integrity within each school such that what is proposed can only be fully understood within the School.And we should respect that.So we should delimit our effort to the ways these plans affect the faculty as a whole and to the relationship between faculty and between Schools.

 

J. McLaughlin: I donít think it is our job to decide if you should do sonics, if it is well enough justified.

 

A. Kapila:I think it is important that the Senate not be seen as intruding on a Schoolís attempt to define itself. If I were head of a unit and put forward a plan, I donít think I would appreciate this kind of response.

 

R. Leifer: Iíve been concerned for a while about how the integration of the plans could occur.I think this is the primary value added that your committee should play.For example, there are many implementation issues.About constellation hires, for example, disparities between salaries between people brought in and people that are already here.This might be addressed in individual plans.What the P&E Committee can do is to give voice to the collective concern, highlighting possible effects on morale, for example.The P&R is really the only forum that can carry the voice of the faculty in these deliberations.

 

N. Rolnick: I agree that the most important role of the P&R relates to integration, but I also appreciate the importance of the P&R Committee getting in at an early enough stage that an effect can be made.What I might suggest is that we suggest to the President and the Cabinet that the P&R Committee be involved in the process very early on.

 

A. Desrochers: We have a P&R Committee with a Chair.We should let them do their work.We donít site here and discuss what the P&T and FSCC do.

 

P. Quinn: With all due respect, I would disagree very strongly.This is a unique situation.The P&T and FSCC have been refined over time and the procedures have been set.This is not the case here.At this point in time, the P&R presents a unique opportunity for the university as a whole.We need to help the P&R in clarifying possible roles for itself.

 

A. Desrochers: What are we trying to decide today?

 

R. Diwan: I want to support what Joyce has done.

 

R. Parson: I support the P&R approach, particularly given that we are planning to go to the Deans and ask if they are willing to participate.

 

M. Hanna: Joyce, what do you need from us today?

 

J. McLaughlin: I have gotten your feedback and I would like your endorsement by a vote or by consensus.I am worried by the suggestion that this committee wants to tell administrators what they can do and what they canít.

 

K. Fortun: I think the use of the term ďendorsementĒ in the memo contributes to this.

 

N. Rolnick: I can support this if it is clarified that the purpose of the review is to provide faculty feedback to Deans.

 

M. Hanna: Do we have a consensus that the P&R committee should go ahead with their plans?

 

[Yes]

 

Faculty Senate Election Slate

The slate was presented. Nominations can be forwarded to Prabhat Hajela, Chiar of the Nominating Committee.

 

Discussion of Provost Candidates (off record)

I now need a motion to go into executive session so that we can discuss the provost candidates.Unanimous 3:00.

 

Prepared by K. Fortun, Recording Secretary.