Academic Senate
Minutes from January 20, 1999

Present: G. Albrecht, J.L. Anderson, M. Bolger, A. Crigler, D. Crockett, F. Feldman, J. Gates, R. Guralnick, S. Hamm-Alvarez, V. Henderson, P. Heseltine, B. Kosko, B. Jansson, M. Kann, H. Kaslow, R. Labaree, A. Mircheff, J. Nyquist, N. Petasis, D. Polan, M. Safonov (proxy for C. Synolakis), G. Schierle, H. Schor, W. Thalmann, W. Tierney, W. Waugaman (proxy for D. Leary), M. Weinstein, L. Wegner, M. Zeichner-David, R. Zimmer

Absent: E. Accampo, M. Apostolos, W. Baer, H. Cheeseman, T. Gustafson, R. Jelliffe, L. Miller, K. Price, P. Starr, N. Stromquist

Guests: L. Armstrong, J. Campbell, C. Ferguson, N. Hanel, A. Levine, M. Levine, S. Pratt, H. Slucki, C. Sullivan, W. Wolf

The meeting was called to order at 2:55 p.m. by President W. Thalmann.

Agenda Item #1: Announcements

President Thalmann begun his remarks by remembering Professor Richard S. Ide, who has recently passed away. He said that Professor Ide was a great colleague who has made numerous contributions to USC, including his recent service as the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies. President Thalmann then made the following announcements:

(a) In late December President Sample signed the Faculty Handbook. The signed version, which is the same as the one distributed at the December Senate meeting, is already posted on the web in a password-protected form for a final proof-reading before it is published. The Senate will be informed as soon as the new Handbook is published on the web. The Executive Board is currently working on updating Chapter 3, "Faculty/ Student Relations" of the 1987 Handbook, which contains a lot of obsolete information. Vice Provost M. Levine and Dean K. Servis are assisting in this update. The Senate will be asked to vote on it at an upcoming meeting.

(b) Following the Senate resolution 98/99-02 "Re-establishment of Teaching Innovation Fund," the Provost agreed to restore this Fund and he has allocated funding in the amount of $50,000 for next year. The joint Senate and Administration Committee on Undergraduate Education will develop guidelines for proposals which will be sought within a few months.

(c) The lawsuit filed by some Faculty of the School of Medicine has recently been settled. President Thalmann congratulated the faculty members involved in the lawsuit who were present at the meeting.

(d) Following a discussion with Vice Provost for Research Neal Sullivan regarding Resolution 98/99-04 "Technology Transfer: General Principles and Licensing Process," which was endorsed by the Senate at the December meeting, it was concluded that most of the recommendations are currently been handled by other existing Committees. Therefore, it was decided that there is no need at this time to appoint another task force as stated in the resolution.

(e) The issue of Faculty Contracts is currently undergoing further review. The idea that these Contracts have to be renewed every year challenges the concept of tenure. It would be better if upon tenure a permanent contract is issued which can be updated every year for salary changes and related information. The current practice has several problems and some Schools, such as the Medical School, have not yet issued the current contracts. While probationary faculty should be given annual contracts, the practice for other tenured and non-tenured faculty should be improved. President Thalmann said that this issue will be referred to all Faculty Councils for review and comment and it will be discussed at the March Senate meeting.

A senator commented that this issue was discussed during the Medical Faculty lawsuit and it was mentioned that the university has switched to the current system from an older system of permanent contracts. It was suggested that before we "re-invent the wheel" we should find out what were the reasons for switching to the current system of annual contracts. Another senator suggested that before we advocate a particular system, the Academic Senate should learn from the legal position of the university at the lawsuit and we should also get advice from a labor lawyer. It was also pointed out that the Senate should not act as a collective bargaining body regarding the contracts. President Thalmann concluded by saying that, while this issue may take some time and some serious thinking, it is worth studying.

Agenda Item #2: Approval of Minutes of the Meetings of November 18, 1998 and December 9, 1998.

The minutes of the November 18, 1998 meeting were approved unanimously. The minutes of the December 9, 1998 meeting were approved with 23 in favor, one opposed and one abstention.

Agenda Item#3. Provost's Remarks

President Thalmann welcomed Provost Lloyd Armstrong.

The Provost first commented on ongoing efforts to identify resources for carrying out the recently adopted Strategic Plan, particularly in interdisciplinary areas. He said that as part of these efforts the system of Revenue (or Responsibility) Center Management (RCM) should be reviewed, in order to find out if there are any obstacles, problems or challenges for pursuing the goals of the university. While the RCM system has a number of important advantages, the Provost indicated that the problems with RCM are primarily financial and that under this system he did not have enough resources for carrying out the stated goals of the Strategic Plan. He also said that with the help of the Trustees he is trying to identify the needed resources.

The Provost then commented on a new Interschool Graduate Program that is being considered. This program will focus on areas that do not fall in any particular school and rather than reporting to any particular Dean it will report to the Vice Provost for Academic Programs. The Provost suggested that this type of Program should create an intellectual community that goes beyond the environment of the individual schools. He pointed out that such Programs exist in other Universities and have been quite successful. He indicated that faculty from different schools can participate in these Programs and that the Deans would provide TA and RA support, while the Provost would provide additional resources for directing the Program, for seminars, etc. The Provost said that we need to create effective mechanisms for bringing together faculty from different schools. He also said that the Trustees are concerned with our ability to carry out our Strategic Plan and that they are supportive of these efforts. He also mentioned that he has already allocated some funds in certain areas and he indicated that the Deans are generally receptive, although some reservations were also expressed. As an example he mentioned the Life Sciences area, where there is ongoing effort to identify schools that can participate in a Program of this type.

In response to a question of a senator regarding the cost of these Programs, the Provost said that he has proposed $16 million a year as a new line item. He further indicated that this corresponds to approximately 10% of indirect costs and he explained that these funds will still end up in the participating schools.

Another senator asked the Provost to comment on the Trustee's view regarding the infrastructure of USC and whether there is a process in place to do what it takes. He responded by saying that while things could always be better, he believed that the Trustees feel that USC faces similar situations with other universities.

A senator commented on the need to be flexible so that new untested Programs will have a one year opportunity to explore potential new bridges within Departments. He also suggested that we should be more interested not in Programs but in encouraging graduate students to pursue studies in interdisciplinary areas. The Provost responded by saying that we should continue to explore these issues, that we should address redundancies among schools and that we should try to utilize existing strengths in a rational way. As an example he mentioned the Psychology Program at the University of Pennsylvania, where the Department of Psychology has only 16 faculty members while an interdisciplinary Program in Psychology has 45 participating faculty and appears much broader.

Another senator said that this is a fabulous proposal and that it should provide new energy and new strength to the areas involved. A concern was raised, however, that the university's resources, such as the libraries, may not be up to the standard needed for the success of such Programs. The Provost agreed that we need to identify what is currently lacking and he pointed out that currently there is no mechanism in place to identify what may be needed.

Support for the proposed Programs was expressed by another senator who also expressed some concern for creating new fiscal entities that could be ultimately manipulated by administrators. The Provost agreed that this is indeed one difficulty, especially as we create vertical organizations that go beyond RCM.

President Thalmann brought the discussion to a close by indicating that more time is needed for this topic and due to the limited time he suggested that any further questions can be forwarded to the Provost by e-mail at: provost@usc.edu. The Provost concluded his remarks by saying that at this time there is no written material on this topic. He also said in other universities (e.g. University of Chicago) that have such Programs, the faculty like them a lot and are very supportive. President Thalmann thanked the Provost for addressing the Senate.

Agenda Item#4. Update on Information Services

President Thalmann introduced Jerry Campbell, Chief Information Officer and University Librarian, and Chris Ferguson, Executive Director, Information Services.

Dr. Campbell addressed the Senate regarding the Doheny Memorial Library Seismic Retrofit Project. He also distributed two hand-outs giving detailed information on the issue. Dr. Campbell said that there is only limited time available for this project because the university was recently told that in order for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide funding, all work must be completed by April 2001. Due to the time constraints, the administration had to move quickly with the development of the required plans, which had to be completed by the end of 1998.

A major problem that has to be resolved is the relocation of the library collections during the construction. Dr. Campbell said that many options are being explored, including the creation of a temporary "bubble" which can make available on a continuous basis about 150,000 volumes. He indicated that this is not a common practice at USC and that such a solution may require multiple movings of volumes during the construction period. He also said that other options are also being studied and the Information Services Division (ISD) is working closely with a number of Committees, including the joint Information Services Committee.

Dr. Campbell then gave the floor to Chris Ferguson who spoke about the structure of the project. At first he invited the senators to send any comments by e-mail to him at cferguso@usc.edu or to Dr. Campbell at jerryc@usc.edu. He then informed the Senate that the ISD is meeting constantly with different action/project teams (a roster for each is listed in the hand-out distributed) to be able to work effectively and smoothly despite the retrofit project. He also said that in order to inform the USC community, the ISD will hold an open meeting. He then opened the floor for questions.

In response to a question by President Thalmann on what to expect for next year, Mr. Ferguson said that some central location will exist that will carry out all of the central library functions, such as the recall of books, etc. It was also suggested form the floor that since the students have many other ways to have computer access, the ISD should explore the possibility of temporarily putting some stacks in the Leavey Library and move out some of the computer connections. Another senator suggested that perhaps this is the time to move towards a more complete electronic access of most books and periodicals. Mr. Ferguson replied that this is an interesting suggestion, but there are some legal issues that are currently being studied.

In response to a concern regarding problems of remote access to the USC network by using a server other than USC's, it was indicated that this problem has now been solved. Another senator asked about the need to retrofit the Norris Medical Library for wheelchair access, according to the Americans with Disability Act, Dr. Campbell replied that he is not responsible for the Norris Medical Library. He further noted that the Doheny library will be brought up to-date on this matter as well.

In response to another comment, Dr. Campbell said that we should always ask the users on what kind of improvements should be made to the libraries. He indicated that, while some of the identified problems may be hard to solve, others are not. He further noted that currently there are too many service points in the libraries and perhaps these should be limited, while the services offered should be expanded (e.g. 24hr access, etc.). Another senator asked if the library databases will be updated and whether they will be kept up to-date. Mr. Ferguson replied that the goal is to do this and that all of the changes will be made available on line. Dr. Campbell concluded by saying he will flood the USC community with information regarding the retrofit project so that everyone will be informed.

President Thalmann thanked Dr. Campbell and Mr. Ferguson for addressing the Senate.

Agenda Item#5. Distribution of Senate Committees' Mid-Year Reports.

The Senate Committees' Mid-Year Reports were distributed to the senators at the meeting.

Agenda Item #6. New Business: Resolution on Faculty Access to Personnel Files

President Thalmann asked Senator B. Kosko to present his motion regarding a proposed Resolution on Faculty access to Personnel files.

A copy of the following resolution was distributed to the senators, along with a related report from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).

Faculty Access to Personnel Files
"Whereas the Academic Senate encourages appropriate academic self-review that includes openness, fairness, accuracy, elimination of bias, and full disclosure, the Senate therefore supports the right of every faculty member to have regular and complete access to his personnel files (including all unredacted letters) at all levels of the University. The Senate notes that the American Association of University Professors endorsed this policy of openness at its seventy-eight annual meeting in 1992 ("Faculty members should, at all times, have access to their own files, including unredacted letters, both internal and external"). To achieve a smooth but swift transition to this goal, the Senate authorizes a task force to review the University's current policy on file access and recommend improvements in accord with the above resolution on full faculty access to personnel files. The task force will report back to the Senate within 60 days"

Senator Kosko presented his motion and pointed out that the current policy is not clear, and that there is an old-type mentality of secrecy and lack of openness. He further stated that there is a potential problem with accuracy and the possibility of various types of errors in the information included in the files. Currently such errors can only be identified if someone files a lawsuit against the University. In response to a potential concern that the lack of confidentiality may diminish candor by the letter writers he stated that this can be applied only to new letters written after the introduction of the new process.

Following the presentation of the motion, President Thalmann asked for a second and after the motion was seconded, he took the floor to discuss the views of the Executive Board on this issue. He stated that this motion was presented to the Executive Board, who discussed it at length and finally decided not to endorse it. He then proceeded to speak in opposition of the resolution and made the following points: There are some legal issues involved on this matter. According to federal and state law, employees may view their personnel files but can only copy only those items which they have signed. Exempted from this are external letters, which can be excluded. In fact the University has the right not to disclose unredacted letters. According to USC policy in some schools employees can have access to redacted letters, i.e. letters that hide the identity of the person writing the letter. Thus, the only remaining issue is access to unredacted letters. A major concern for such access is the potential adverse effect on the current system of promotion and tenure. Indeed the quality of the letters should correspond to the quality of the faculty. However, the AAUP statement did not consider the issues of rigor and objectivity by those writing the letters and it is not credible that access will result in more reliable letters. In fact many faculty will not write letters or will not be forthcoming in their opinion if the confidentiality is not maintained. Also, while the AAUP states that access may result in more fair letters by external reviewers, no credit is given to the several faculty-based personnel committees that carefully review these letters and make their own judgement and recommendations. Finally, the proposed resolution has a problem in respect to the proposed task force, which is actually charged with recommending a pre-determined result.

Other senators expressed additional concerns on the need for such access. One senator pointed out that letters are just instruments for a decision regarding promotion and tenure and should not be given much broader value. If such a decision is not favorable, the faculty member can indeed request access to these unredacted letters, while if the decision is favorable the need to have access to these letters is not well-justified. Another senator said that this is a seriously bad idea. He then proceeded to describe his own bad experience with an unexpected disclosure of his own letter regarding a Dean. He further pointed out that rather than lead to a greater openness, the proposed access to unredacted letters will in fact damage the tenure system and will lead to a more secretive system resulting from the dissemination of information regarding particular letter writers. He concluded by saying that it may in fact be better for the faculty to waive any rights for access to these letters.

Following this discussion a point of order was made regarding the lack of sufficient time to adequately discuss this issue. Subsequently the Senate decided to table the motion until the next meeting with 16 in favor, 7 opposed, and no abstention. President Thalmann encouraged the Senate to discuss the issue with their colleagues.

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

___________________
Respectfully Submitted,

Nicos A. Petasis
Professor of Chemistry
Secretary General of the Academic Senate