Minutes
Present: F. Clark, W. Dappen, W. Dutton, F. Feldman, J. Gates, D. Ghirardo, N. Hanel,
C. Julienne (alternate for S. Sobel), H. Kaslow, P. Knoll, B. Kosko, J. Kunc, T. Kuran, R. Labaree, W. Mack, J. Manegold, A. Mircheff, S. Murphy, J. Nyquist, M. Renov, B. Sarter, H. Schor, D. Stram, D. Walsh, M. Weinstein, M. Wincor, B. Zuckerman
Absent: K. Alexander, M. Apostolos, A. Crigler, D. Bohlinger, , R. Goodyear,
H. James, B. Knight, D. Larsen, P. Nosco, M. Omar, J. Peters, E. Saks, D. Sloane, B. Solomon
Guests: Y. Chen, S. Golomb, M. Levine, L. Macchia, R. Rodriguez, H. Slucki, C. Zachary
Senate called to order at 2:30 p.m. by President
William Dutton.
Meeting adjourned at 4:35
p.m.
Action taken by the Senate:
Approval
of Minutes of the December 13, 2000 meeting (Agenda item #2)
Minutes
approved without dissent.
Senate
President Dutton agreed to write faculty for feedback on the Senate, Executive
Board and Faculty Councils, including thoughts on how to improve their
performance. (Agenda Item 5).
Announcements by President Dutton (Agenda item #1)
1. Intellectual Property: On 4
January, the Executive Board met with Vice Provost Neal Sullivan to discuss
progress on a number of new and up-dated research policy issues as outline
below:
A. Intellectual
Property: Last academic year, the
Senate passed a policy on Intellectual Property, dealing with copyright, patent
and trademark policies. Discussion of
that issue in the Senate raised the concept of offering faculty an option of
working within existing policy on royalty sharing, for example, rather than opt
into the new policy. In light of that
discussion, the Administration plans to introduce a revised policy, which includes
an option for current faculty. The new
policy would apply to new faculty, and to current faculty who choose it. It is hoped that this new policy reaches the
Senate within the next two months.
B. Courseware: The courseware policy has been separated
from the previous policy and is being discussed by a subcommittee of the
Research Committee. They are reviewing
the policy developed at the University of Chicago as a better model to adapt
for use at USC (see the Senate Web site).
C. Incubators: Vice Provost Sullivan is enthusiastic about the development of an
incubator policy for USC, which we do not have at the present time, as a means
to facilitate the development of real and virtual incubators that would
stimulate and support useful collaboration between faculty, students and
industry.
D. Post-Doctoral
Fellows: A post-doctoral fellow
policy is being developed as a means to facilitate and encourage more
post-doctoral positions.
E. Misconduct: Based on new federal guidelines, USC is
up-dating its Policy and Procedures for Reporting and Investigating Allegations
of Misconduct in Scientific Research.
F. Conflicts of
Interest: USC is up-dating its
September 20,1995 policy on Conflict of Interest in Research: Policy and
Procedures. This will involve, among
other things, the creation of a more formal versus ad hoc panel of faculty to
advise the Provost on issues arising from Faculty Disclosure of Financial
Interests in research. The Senate Selection Committee and Executive Board will
help review and nominate individuals to serve on this panel.
2. Deferred Rush: On 10
January, the Executive Board met with Michael Jackson, Vice President of
Student Affairs, Ken Taylor, Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs and
Office for Residential and Greek Life, Lawford Anderson, Past President of the
Senate, and four student representatives of the Greek fraternities and
sororities to discuss the status of deferred rush, the subject of a Senate
Resolution (98/99-03), which favored the principle of deferred rush by an 11-10
vote in November, 1998. It was a
constructive meeting at which we were able to hear about progress on several
fronts, and arguments in favor and opposed to instituting deferred rush. The Senate can provide advice or other
support in whatever further consideration this issue merits.
3. Faculty Handbook: The 2000
Faculty Handbook is awaiting President Sample's signature and will be posted on
the Web as soon as possible after its final approval.
4. Dismissals: Professor Kosko of Engineering asked that we look into
rumors that faculty dismissals have risen dramatically over the last few
years There are about 1-2 dismissal
cases per year. Some cases extend
over 2-3 years. Over the last few years, there have been no
more than about half a dozen cases. The
University usually deals with 1-2 cases a year out of a faculty of over 2,500
tenure-track faculty. The numbers are
way too small to talk about geometric increases in dismissal. Dismissals were all quite exceptional cases,
most often tied to a faculty member abandoning his or her teaching
responsibilities.
6. Family Leave: The Joint
Provost/Senate Task Force on Family Leave Policy has completed its report. Dated 18 December 2000, the report is now
available on the Senate Web site (look under Current Topics) and copies are available
for distribution at today's meeting.
The chair of the Task Force, Professor Mary Dudziak, and some of her
colleagues have agreed to join our February Senate meeting to discuss their
findings and recommendations. Professor
Dutton will also send out copies for
feedback from Faculty Councils.
Tenure Clock Task Force Report (Agenda item #3)
Professor Timur Kuran, Chair
of the Tenure Clock Task Force, presented their completed report to the
Senate. The report recommends a
revision of the Faculty Handbook that will permit individual schools to extend
a tenure clock from the current maximum of 7 years up to a maximum of 12
years. The tenure clock extension will
require a secret vote of the faculty within the school before it can take
effect. This recommendation is a change
in tenure standards, but one that would increase flexibility so that individual
school’s tenure clocks could be set to match national trends within their set
of competing institutions.
President Dutton stated that
this issue requires wide consultation with faculty, so there was no
anticipation of a vote on this until a later Senate meeting, either in February
or March. He encouraged Senators to
take this issue back to their faculty councils for debate and
consideration. He will also send out a
request for written comments from faculty councils.
There was extensive
discussion following the report. Issues
of concern included: 1) this change
still might lead to different standards for tenure, 2) may cause the faculty member
more work since he or she may have to obtain outside letters more often than is
the case now (for example, at the 6th and again at the 8th
year), although letters are presently required for promotion to Associate and
full Professor, 3) an extended clock would “raise the bar,” 4) be generally
unfair -- instead of a 6 year “up or out” an individual would have to wait
10-12 years for a decision, 5) unfair for female faculty who would find
themselves putting their child bearing off even longer than now, 6) may hurt
recruiting faculty who be reluctant to give up a tenured position to come to
USC where they would have to wait another few years for tenure, 7) UCAPT would
not be able to fairly evaluate a 6, 9, or a 12 year tenure decision, and 8)
this recommendation is “not well thought out”.
Support arguments included: 1)
extending the clock would be fair for faculty at schools where a 6 year tenure
decisions does not permit enough time for a decision among faculty who have
multi-responsibilities, or require time to set up labs or projects critical to
publication downstream, such as at the medical and business schools, 2) allows
individual schools to match national trends for tenure decisions, 3) extension
will help keep excellent faculty that are lost to schools where the clock is
longer (this is reported to be happening in the business school), 4) UCAPT
already has experience with schools that have shorter clocks like the law
school and should be able to handle differences in the tenure clock, 5)
maintains a University-wide standard maximum, but with more flexibility by
school and 6) this change would only take place if the school’s faculty voted
for it and thus would reflect the will of the faculty.
Revised Health Benefit Policy for Retired Faculty (Agenda item #4)
President Dutton announced
that the Provost, in consultation with the Senate Executive Board and relevant
committees, is formulating a new policy in light of recent court rulings over
age discrimination tied to unequal costs or benefits for those over or under
age 65. The Executive Board and
relevant committee chairs, Jim Manegold and Bill Weber, met with USC Counsel,
David Raish of Ropes & Gray in Boston, to ensure that we understood his
interpretation of the Circuit Court case, and what it means for USC. He was
accompanied by Jim Ball of USC's Office of General Counsel and Lisa Macchia,
Director of Health Plans Administration.
Discussion ranged from the details of the case law to how the health
benefits policy could be revised in order to move the benefits for retired
faculty to equal benefits and costs.
A revision in line with
recent court rulings is likely to involve a change in the principles
underpinning the policy passed last year by the Senate. It is possible under some scenarios that
retirees would receive less than what was passed by the Senate last year. However, the Executive Board felt that
current discussions are too preliminary to bring any specific recommendation or
proposal to the Senate or the Senate Committees dealing with faculty benefits.
As soon as a new policy is made concrete, it will be presented to the Senate
for discussion and action.
(Agenda item #5)
Joseph Kunc, head of the
Engineering Faculty Council, proposed a motion on behalf of the faculty of the
School of Engineering, asking that the officers of the Senate be directly
elected by the faculty rather than by the Senate representatives. President Dutton noted that Article IV,
Section 7 of the Senate Constitution states:
"The Academic Senate shall elect the executive officers of the
faculty and the Members at Large of the Executive Board." Therefore, the proposal seeks to amend the
Senate Constitution. The procedure is,
therefore, that we would need a majority of the Senate to vote in support of
this motion in order for a resolution to be on the agenda of our next Senate
meeting. At that time, it would require
a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to adopt the proposed amendment.
The proposed motion was discussed,
but no formal motion was made.
Following the discussion, which included a discussion of the general
issue of how to engage more faculty in activities and work of the Senate,
President Dutton agreed to send a request to each faculty council for constructive
suggestions for improving the culture and effectiveness of the Senate,
including the Executive Board and the Faculty Councils.
Professor Kunc said the
proposal was only meant as a device for alerting the Senate to the concern of
Engineering School faculty over the degree to which faculty involvement and
participation in the work of the faculty councils and Senate needed to be
addressed.
The proponents of the motion
raised concerns about the Executive Board in that 1) the current Senate
Executive Board is too powerful in that it deals with issues that should be
discussed by the entire Senate, 2) its resolutions get passed by the Senate,
and 3) it is not in step with the desires of “rank and file” faculty. Proponents also state that direct elections
of the Executive Board and Senate President would result in involving more
faculty throughout the University.
Currently, not enough faculty know or care about the Senate.
Arguments
raised in opposition to the proposed motion were: 1) direct elections of the Executive Board and President would
result in the fact that neither would be responsible to the Senate, as is now
the case, 2) most faculty are not as knowledgeable and informed as the Senate
is in making informed decisions about Senate leadership, 3) the Nomination
Committee seeks qualified candidates and broad representation on the Executive
Board, while direct elections could narrow representation and result in
gadflies being elected only because of name recognition, 4) qualified
candidates may not be attracted to seek election when opposed by the faculty
gadfly with name recognition, 5) large schools would be disproportionately
advantaged, 6) small schools would be under-represented, 7) the Academic Senate
is not a legislature, but a deliberative body that seeks to advise and
influence the administration as well as keep the faculty informed about
relevant issues, and 8) the motion in its present form would disenfranchise a
large number of special and clinical track faculty since it excludes them from
voting for the Executive Board and the President.
Non-Tenure Track Policy for Keck School of Medicine (Agenda
item #6)
Relevant background
documents were distributed, but discussion was deferred to the February
meeting.
Office of the Provost: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (Agenda item #7)
Did
not have time for Vice-Provost Levine’s report.
New Business (Agenda item #8)
Item not discussed.
Handouts at the Meeting:
1) Minutes of December 13, 2000 Academic Senate Meeting for approval
2) Minutes of October 18, 2000
3) Academic Senate Roster: 2000-2001
4) Task Force on Tenure Clock Policy Report
5) Joint Provost/Faculty Senate Task Force on Family Leave Policy December 18, 2000 Report
6) Proposed Resolution from the Engineering Faculty Council: Open Vote for Senate President and Executive Board
7) Conflict of Interest in Research: Policy and Procedures, September 20, 1995
8) Procedures for Non-Tenure Track Faculty Appointment, Promotion, Reappointment, Non-reappointment and Mid-contract Termination at Keck School of Medicine
9) December 10, 2000 letter from President Dutton to Professor Kaslow
10) January 9, 2001 letter from Provost Armstrong to Professor Kaslow
11) Senate Resolution 96/97-17
12) Copy of Faculty Handbook, Pages 32-34 with suggested additions
Respectfully Submitted,
Jerry D. Gates, Ph.D.
Secretary General of the Academic
Senate