Academic Senate
Meeting of February 18, 2004

DRAFT 

Minutes

 

 

Present: M. Afifi, M. Apostolos, J. Brown, R. Cole, G. Davison, T. Goodnight (alternate for P. Vorderer), N. Hanel,  E. Heikkila, N. Hollyn,  P. Levine, W. Mack, E. McCann, S. Montgomery, J. Moore, M. Nichol, R. Nishimoto, J. Nyquist, G. Painter, P. Pattengale, M. Safonov, G. Schierle, K. Shing, P. Starr, D. Stram, W. Waugaman (alternate for R. Zemke), W. Weber,  M. Weinstein, D. Wilson, W. Wolf (alternate for D. Ann)

 

Absent: C. Betts, P. Conti, Fogu, R. Garet, E. Garrett, G. Glueckert, E. Hollins, N. Lutkehaus, M. Omar, P. Shrivastava, J. Walsh

 

Guests: S. Gupta, B. Kosko, M. Levine, L. McCann, H. Slucki, C. Zachary

 

Actions: 

1.  Resolution 03/04-01 was passed

2.  Resolution 03/04-04 was passed

 

The meeting was called to order at 2:50 p.m.

1.  Approval of January Senate Meeting Minutes                 

The January meeting minutes were approved with 15 in favor, none opposed, and one abstention.

2.  Announcements

 

Next meeting of the Senate will be at HSC, in CHP 101.  The annual state of the University presentation will be on February 25 at the University Park Campus, and February 26 at the Health Science Campus.

 

a)  Update from the Nominating Committee

The nominating committee is completing the slate of candidates, and a report will be provided to the Senate at the next meeting.

 

b)  Senate Committee Mid-year Reports, the Senate was provided copies of the reports from the Committee on Faculty Environment, the Committee on Information Services (CIS), and the CIS Sub-committee on Academic Technology.  Professor Lund, chair of the Subcommittee on Academic Technology requested the adoption of the report.  President McCann indicated that would be on the agenda for the next Senate meeting, after the Senate had the opportunity to review the report.

3.  NCAA Accreditation

 

Vice President of Student Services Jackson was introduced to present the process associated with the NCAA accreditation that is required every ten years.  The focus of the process is to assure that the USC athletics program has conformed to the NCAA rules, regulations, and standards in all sports.  The accreditation process is in intended to provide an open process to raise any concerns regarding University athletics.  The Senate was encouraged to participate in this process, and to make any concerns regarding the athletic program known.  Faculty can contact Mr. Jackson directly at mjackson@usc.edu.

 

The Senate asked whether there were concerns expressed during the last evaluation nine years ago.  Mr. Jackson reported that there were no concerns or recommendations noted in the last accreditation by the NCAA.  The administration did note at the time that the university would be challenged to meet requirements for academic performance, but the athletic department and student services units have paid particular attention to this issue in recent years.

 

The Senate asked whether any representatives of the University have been involved in some of the recent discussions concerning the role of athletics in academia.  Mr. Jackson indicated that he wasn’t sure whether Athletic Director Garrett was involved in the discussions, but President Sample has participated in the Knight Commission. 

 

The Senate asked how the University assures that top prospects meet University admission standards.  A coach that identifies a top prospect asks the Admissions Office to review the transcripts of potential recruits.  It was noted that in some cases, these prospects do not meet the admission requirements of the University and the NCAA minimums.  The Senate also asked if the student left the academic program, would they continue in the University.  Mr. Jackson indicated that if the students were in good academic standing, they continue at the University, and in many cases continue their scholarship.

4.  E-mail Deletion/Retention Policy

 

Professor Ando, the chair of the E-mail Deletion/Retention Policy Task Force was introduced.  President McCann drew the Senate to the materials in the packet, including the Task Force Report and the Provost’s implementation memorandum.  Professor Ando noted that the Task Force was concerned that 1) the policy demands that all email be deleted without guidance about materials that should be saved;  2) migration of saved materials to department servers precludes remote access by faculty; and, 3) implementation of the policy would cause unequal burdens across units because of differences in IT support.  The provost’s memo addresses several of these issues, but requires CIS implementation.  The Task Force continues to express concern that there will be difficulty with IT support at the unit level.  It is not clear how the problems of hardware and technical support will be addressed.

 

The Senate asked about the average size of the disk storage available to faculty.  It was indicated that the standard allocation was 75mb, with an average use of 20mb.   There is considerable variation in the use of email and storage by faculty and staff.  It was noted that there is extensive variation in the understanding and use of email programs and servers. 

 

Since the policy is designed to reduce legal discovery costs at the University level, concern was expressed that the liability of discovery would devolve to the keeper of local unit hardware and software.  It is not clear whether the liability would reside with the unit.  Concern was also expressed that ISD and the General Counsel office have developed the email policies to simplify their work, not the work of the faculty.


5.  Handbook Resolutions and Handbook Revision Process 

 

Prior to the introduction of the Handbook Resolutions, President McCann reported on the results of the three open meetings (Medical Faculty Assembly, Pharmacy Faculty Assembly, and the UPC open meeting).  As a result of the discussion at these meetings, the Executive Board has chosen to not re-introduce the financial exigency (Resolution 03/04-03) and salary reduction resolutions (Resolution 03/04-05).  These will be referred to the Handbook Committee to determine whether a revision is appropriate and/or necessary.  A resolution will be forthcoming for the re-organization of the Handbook.


a)  Emeritus Faculty Status

 

The handbook revision related to Emeritus Faculty Status (Resolution 03/04-01) was brought off the table from the last meeting.  A revision to Resolution 03/04-01 was moved by the Executive Board, and does not require a second.  A question was asked regarding the deletion of the previous policy that a faculty member would be required to have ten years experience with the University prior to consideration for emeritus status.  It was noted that there may be candidates that have shorter University careers that deserve recognition.  It was also asked whether emeriti faculty would be considered a full-fledged member of dissertation committees.  This issue would be resolved by the Graduate School. The resolution was passed 23 in favor, one opposed, and no abstentions.


b)  Procedures for Dismissal of Faculty

 

President McCann introduced changes to Resolution 03/04-04 regarding dismissal of faculty.  It was commented that the process of faculty dismissal should mimic a judicial process.  The present and proposed process allows the dean of the unit to be the prosecutor, judge, and to appoint the jury.  Line 35 should be amended to include, in parens, “(with notice to the Council chair or senior member)” after the phrase “…members of the faculty council.”  This was accepted as a friendly amendment by President McCann.

 

It was further noted that the process for dismissal for substandard professional performance should be similar to the tenure and promotion process.  It was asked whether there are explicit grounds for dismissal.  Article III, 9 B includes a listing of reasons for dismissal.  It was recommended that mediation be considered prior to the assembly of a faculty committee.  It was noted that the resolution under consideration has not changed the existing language regarding mediation.

          

Resolution 03/04-04 was passed with 18 in favor, 1 opposed, and no abstentions.

6.  Vice Provost’s Comments

The discussion of the faculty handbook resolutions precluded a discussion by Vice Provost Levine and he was invited to present at the next meeting.

7.  New Business

Information regarding tickets for the Democratic Presidential debate and the YoYo Ma concert was provided.  It was also requested that a concern regarding the price of football tickets be added to the next Senate agenda.

 

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

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Mike Nichol, Ph.D.

Secretary General of the Academic Senate