Academic Senate

January 21, 2004

DRAFT

Meeting Minutes

Present: M. Afifi, M. Apostolos, C. Betts, J. Brown, R. Cole, P. Conti, G. Davison, R. Garet, E. Garrett, J. Glueckert, E. Heikkila, B. Kosko (alternate for K. Shing), P. Levine, W. Mack, E. McCann, S. Montgomery, J. Moore, M. Nichol, R. Nishimoto, J. Nyquist, G. Painter, P. Pattengale, M. Safonov, G. Schierle, P. Shrivastava, P. Starr, D. Stram, P. Vorderer, W. Waugaman (alternate for R. Zemke), M. Weinstein, W. Wolf (alternate for D. Ann)

Absent: C. Fogu, E. Forrester, E. Hollins, N. Lutkehaus, M. Omar, M. Renov, J. Walsh, W. Weber

Guests: L. Armstrong, S. Gupta, J. Hellige, M. Levine, M. McCaffrey, L. McCann, H. Slucki, C. Zachary, M. Levine, L. McCann

Actions:

1. Resolution 03/04-01 was tabled.

2. Resolution 03/04-02 was passed.

3. Resolution 03/04-03 was postponed until the next meeting of the Senate

President McCann called the meeting to order at 2:50 pm.

1. Minutes of December mini-retreat

The minutes of the December mini-retreat were approved with one opposed, and two abstentions.

2. Announcements

President McCann provided material related to the Retired Faculty Association, including a recent newsletter and membership application. It was announced that spouses, as well as spouses of deceased faculty, are eligible to join the RFA. The RFA now includes more than 480 members. The Academic Senate was encouraged to attend RFA events.

President McCann announced the availability of mid-year reports from the Academic Programs and Teaching Committee, as well as the Distance Edcuation and Distributed Learning Committee. A report from the Email Retention Ad-Hoc Task Force has been received and will be distributed soon. It was noted that the administration intends to implement the email retention policy March 1, and that it is important that the Senate Executive Board act on the recommendations of the Task Force in a timely manner.

3. Provost Report

Provost Armstrong began his report with a discussion of the applicant pool for the 2004-2005 class. He was pleased to report that the quality of the pool was excellent and continues recent trends for the University undergraduates. It is not clear whether the ongoing State of California budget problems will impact the CalGrants program, but it is expected that it will be necessary to provide greater financial support for the incoming class. On the graduate program side, there has been a decline in foreign student applicants for the next year, but it is not clear that this represents a trend. The President then opened the floor for questions.

Q: What is the trend in fundraising?

A: The last year has been one of the best in the University’s history for cash contributions. Although the major campaign has ended, and the economy has been stagnant, the University has seen no negative impact. Several schools are in the process of developing major campaigns of their own.

Q: The Senate continues to be concerned about the review and implementation of conflict of interest in research policies.

A: The administration welcomes the insight of the Senate on this critical issue. The University Research Committee will be addressing this issue in the next several months.

Q: How does the University’s endowment level compare to our peers?

A: The USC Endowment has grown dramatically in recent years, mostly due to the positive response to the campaign. However, the University still lags behind research university peers on a per student or per faculty basis.

Q: What is the trend in the University’s retention rate?

A: The goal is to have at least 95% of the undergraduate population completing their degrees within five years. At present, the graduation rate within six years approximates 81%.

Q: What is the policy on dean searches with regard to participation of faculty councils?

A: There is no set policy on faculty council representation on dean search committees, but the Administration is committed to faculty involvement in this critical process. When a deanship is vacated, the Provost meets with the school’s faculty to identify goals for the both the school and the position. A committee is then assembled that includes faculty representation, and is chaired by the Provost and the dean of another school. Generally, the committee will set priorities among applicants with the goal of developing a list of approximately ten high priority candidates. This list will be further narrowed, and three or four candidates will be interviewed on-site. The search committee will solicit comments from faculty and staff. The committee forwards their comments to the Provost, who will then meet with President Sample. The President makes the final hiring decision.

Q: What’s the significance of the emeritus title at USC?

A: The title is bestowed at the request of the school. It is noted that schools don’t necessarily request that all retired faculty be designated emeritus. Schools probably limit their requests to candidates who deserve additional recognition, and for whom they want to maintain an ongoing relationship after retirement.

Q: How will ‘unproductive’ faculty members be identified?

A: The administration depends on faculty to provide advice on matters of this kind, but there is a standard hierarchy of department chair, dean, and provost for evaluation purposes. It is hoped that the faculty within a department can identify faculty members that may not be performing optimally, but it’s important for administration and faculty to work together to identify appropriate areas for faculty improvement. Faculty should be encouraged to create activities that assure important contributions to the institution.

Q: What is the plan to assure electronic interconnectivity that embraces all Schools?

A: This is an interesting question, because there are clearly differences between schools and their commitment to interconnectivity. For example, Keck School of Medicine has devoted a staff member to review information technology needs and plans. Other schools maintain an active IT staff that assists faculty and staff in this critical infrastructure. There is a joint administration/Senate committee working on roles and responsibilities for infrastructure needs, and it is hoped that the committee will be able to make important recommendations for the improvement of this function.

Q: What activities have encouraged interdisciplinary research?

A: There are several initiatives in this regard. The strategic planning process continues to identify this area as critical to the development and competitiveness of the institution. It is expected that the Strategic Planning Committee will make specific proposal to enhance our activities in this area.

4. Faculty Handbook Resolutions

President McCann introduced the main topics of the Handbook resolutions. It was noted that the list of recommendations, with the exception of the emeritus resolution, was in response to last year’s Handbook Committee. In addition to the issues on the table for the present meeting, it is expected that a subsequent set of resolutions will address a general re-organization of the Handbook.

A. Resolution 03/04-01 (moved by the Executive Board, does not require a second)

The discussion of this resolution regarding emeritus status, focused on concerns regarding the meaning of the title. Senators were concerned that additional clarification was preferable to the revised language. A motion to table was passed with 15 in favor, 10 opposed, and three abstentions.

B. Resolution 03/04-02 (moved by the Executive Board, does not require a second)

Concerns were expressed whether appropriate national standards, including AAUP policies, were consulted in the drafting of this resolution concerning sanctions for sexual harassment. In addition, the resolution appears to depart from the standard due process protections within the Handbook. It was recommended that the individual case should be referred to the appropriate body, but it was noted that the existing process is mandated by federal law. As written, the procedure demands that the same committee that addresses dismissal procedures would be involved.

Resolution 03/04-02 was passed with 28 in favor, no one opposed, and one abstention.

C. Resolution 03/04-03 (Financial Exigency), Resolution 03/04-04 (Dismissal of Faculty), and Resolution 03/04-05 (Reductions in Salary)

Resolution 03/04-03 addressing financial exigency and the closure of units within the University engendered discussion regarding both definitions and process. It was recommended that the word “substantial” be added to line 53, and that “will” should be substituted for “could” in line 54. It was noted that the goal of the language should be to minimize ambiguity and maximize protection for tenure. There was considerable concern regarding the need for guidance of this nature, but it was also argued that such provisions protect faculty through the use of a more transparent process. It was argued that the Senate should rely on past efforts to reinforce the language of the AAUP regarding financial exigency, which demands that the University as a whole be threatened by budgetary constraints prior to dismissal of tenured faculty. Similar concerns were expressed regarding the dismissal of faculty (Resolution 03/04-04) and the salary reduction issue (Resolution 03/04-05).

A motion to postpone consideration of Resolution 03/04-03 was introduced. A motion to close debate on this resolution was adopted 20 in favor, three opposed, and three abstaining. The motion to postpone Resolution 03/04-03 until the next meeting of the Senate was adopted with 16 in favor, eight against, and three abstaining.

5. Graduate Fellowships

President McCann introduced Provost Hellige who distributed information about fellowship opportunities through the Graduate School and foundations. He noted that the Graduate School only solicits candidates for fellowships or scholarships that are controlled directly through the School. A question was posed regarding the proportion of such fellowships that are awarded solely on the basis of race or gender, and Provost Hellige indicated that seven were awarded in the last year. The proportion of all graduate fellowships based on such criteria was unknown, because the Graduate School does not have information regarding all of the fellowships offered by individual units.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mike Nichol, Ph.D.

Secretary General of the Academic Senate