The meeting was called to order at 2:45 p.m. by Senate President Erwin Chemerinsky.
Agenda Item #1. Announcements. President Chemerinsky adivsed that substantial progress has been made on the revision of the Faculty Handbook. The planned schedule is to discuss the new Handbook in April, and vote on it in May. The Bylaws of the Academic Senate stipulate that one meeting of the Senate each year is to be a Faculty Assembly meeting, to which all Faculty are invited . Therefore, it is logical to have the Assembly meet in April for a discussion of the Faculty Handbook. A draft of the report on the Task Force on the Future of the Health Sciences has been included in the packet distibuted today. the report will be discussed at the March meeting. Senators in attendance were invited to distribute copies of the report to Council members and to seek feedback from their attendance were invited to distribute copies of the report to Council members and to seek feedback from their faculty colleagues. Comments on the report should be directed to Drs. Donna Shoupe or Walter Wold via e-mail.
Agenda Item #2. Approlval of Minutes. The minutes were approved as presented.
Agenda Item #4. Resolution 96/97-07 re: Campus Mailboxes. Because Procvost was not yet in attendance , Agenda Item #4 was moved ahead of Agenda Item #3. A friendly ammendment to delete the second paragraph was accepted because a sperate sommittee is currently addressing issues pertaining to accessibility of e-mail. A longer and more detailed policy regarding e-mail will be forthcoming. The resolution was passedd unanimously.
Agenda Item #3. Remarks from Provost Armstorng. Provost Amrstrong first commented on President Sample’s annual Staff Leadership conference, which focused on the Cost and Services Task Force. This Task Force dealt with a re-organization of Services with cost-cutting in mind. Some of the following may be invisible to faculty on a daily basis, but all are attempts to trim costs: (1) There will be a new procurement card used by Sneior Business Officers. This will enable some purchases to be made more quickly and efficiently on campus, (2) The University will soon be accepting bids for new travel agency arrangements. As currently conducted, USC does not received preferential benefits which are offered to some other businesses. Bids will be solicited for improved travel arrangements, improved costs, and improved benefits. (3) The Univesity now has a Chief Information Officer, Jerry Campbell. The Provost advised that computing and networking, controlling costs and improved arrangements for discounts from suppliers or vendors will eventually save USC millions of dollars.
The Task Force is also studying costs which can be saved in Student Services. Costs are being studied regarding Advising, especially when students move from major to major. Advisors are now meting with Faculty on the Graduation and Retention Rates to map out what is happening and advise on improvements. The University of Southern California needs to improve its Retention rates--both because we have low retention rates relative to comparable private Universities, and because it is extremely costly to lose students which have recruited. In addition, there are the added costs of processing and admitting new students. The approach is to attempt to "map" advising choices, simplify General Education, and implement other changes in order to save money, simplify advising, and increase efficiency.
The Provost promised that the new Travel procedures will not in fact add a bureaucratic level to the University, and will in fact help faculty members. Also, the Provost reported that USC Travel will be invited to bid on the new contract. However, we hope to find a corporation which can help us match the "perks" other major corporations are obtaining.
The Provost was asked to help resolve a problem with some of the University systems not being able to communicate or even recognize one another. The Provost promised to work toward a system allowing improved communication between systems.
The provost reported that continued discussions were taking place regarding the Resolution pertaining to protecting the tenure of ISSM. The Provost stated that it requires time to take action when responding to "resolution of substance."
The Provost gave a brief history of the Faculty Governance document for the Medical School Campus. It appears that the document was never fully accepted or rejected by the parties involved, although former Provost Pings voices some dissatisfaction with the document. Nonetheless, portions of the Governance document were implemented (but not all). The Provost stated that he hopes to have as much as possible "straightened out" in the next two weeks. The Provost did not know if the document was presented to any Accreditation agency.
Agenda Item #5. Discussion: Grievance Process. President Chemerinsky discussed the history of, and the need for, improving the Faculty Grievance Process. He also discussed how the Senate and Administration worked together to draft the new guidelines. Senate President Chemerinsky promised to work with the Administration regarding wording dealing with the length of time involved in the grievance process (stipulating 30 day time limits for responses.) Chemerinsky stated that the rationale for some of the changes in the Grievance dealt with simplifying the process and removing some layers that may be necessary.
A discussion focused on the role of the faculty Mediation Officer plays in the Grievance process. The Faculty Mediation Officer was excluded in the current draft of the Grievance process because it was felt that the Faculty Mediation Officer plays an important role prior to the Grievance process. The consensus of the Senate was that new language would be drafted to detail the importance of Mediation processes (prior to Grievance), and to include the Faculty Mediation Officer in the Grievance Process (no vote was taken on the recommended changes). Additional language changes may be incorporated based on questions Senators raised regarding "reappointment," and "denial of tenure without cause." Senate President Chemerinsky explained some of the guidelines dealing with who has authority to "dismiss" a grievance, and the guidelines for when a grievance case can be dismissed by the Grievance Panel. The rationale is to have a Grievance Panel act with authority as a judge and as a decision-maker.
Based on the feedback from Senate, President Chemerinsky agreed to make the following six changes in the proposed Guidelines:
(1) Some time limit will be added regarding the
President’s response;
(2) Some language will be added regarding the role of the University Mediation Officer;
(3) Add an additional paragraph in 2.5 (a); that the claim that "tenure has been
revoked" can be grieved;
(4) There will be a call for an on-going, annual report regarding grievance processes and
outcomes;
(5) The members on the Tenure and Privilege Appeals Committee will sign statements
indicating
they agree to serve;
(6) On page 5, that an individ ual who was a faculty member when the aggrieved action
occurred
will have the right to a file grievance.
Agenda #6. New Business. New business items were not considered since there was no longer a quorum present.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m..
Submitted by: Michael Cody
Editor, Academic Senate Forum