Academic Senate
Minutes of the Meeting of February 17, 1999
Present: E. Accampo, J.L Anderson, M. Bolger, A. Crigler, D. Crockett, F., Feldman, J. Gates, R. Guralnick, V. Henderson, H. Kaslow, B. Kosko, B. Knight, R. Labaree, J. Nyquist, W. Petak, N. Petasis, D. Polan, M. Safanov (proxy for C. Synolakis), G. Schierle, P. Starr, N. Stromquist, W. Thalmann, W. Waugamann (proxy for D. Leary) L. Wegner, M. Weinstein, M.Zeichner-David, R. Zimmer.
Absent: G. Albrecht, M. Apostolos, H. Cheeseman, S. Hamm-Alvarez, P. Heseltine, B. Jansson, R. Jelliffe, M. Kann, D. Leary, L. Miller, A. Mircheff, K. Price, H. Schor, C. Silva-Corvalan (sabbatical leave), W. Tierney
Guests: C. Cherrey, C. Ferguson, N. Hanel, A. Levine, M. Levine, S. Pratt, K. Rowan-Badger, K. Servis, H. Slucki, C. Sullivan, J. Zernik
The meeting was called to order at 2:50 p.m. by President William G. Thalmann
Agenda Item #1: Announcements.
President Thalmann made the following announcements:
(a) The Nominating Committee is in the process of putting together a list of candidates for election to the Senate Executive Board. The election schedule deadlines and a write-in candidate form were distributed at the meeting. President Thalmann reminded the senators that they can submit any additional names of candidates to the senate office by the deadline of March 19.
(b) The Senate list server is currently being updated by J. Zernik, who is asking the
faculty to help out by sending him any changes in their e-mail address.
After some corrections to the attendance list, the minutes of the January Senate meeting was approved with 20 in favor, no opposed and one abstention.
The scheduled Agenda Item #4 was discussed ahead of Agenda item number 3 because Cynthia Cherrey had not arrived yet.
Agenda Item #4. Resolution 98/99-07 re: Faculty File Access
This resolution was tabled at the January meeting. As a result of discussions and comments from the Senators at the last meeting, the proposed resolution was revised as follows:
"Whereas the Academic Senate endorses openness, fairness, accuracy, elimination of bias, and full disclosure, the Senate therefore supports the right of every faculty member to have regular access to his or her personnel files at all levels of the University (this includes the department, dean, and provost levels). This access includes the right to promptly make or receive a copy of one's own file. All files shall be complete with the sole exception that all promotion letters and other outside letters of reference shall be redacted to remove the identity and institution of letter authors. Redaction shall not apply to letters or other documents produced within the university."
Senator B. Kosko, who made the motion for this resolution, explained that the resolution was revised to allow access only to redacted letters in response to concerns that access to unredacted letters may result in a lack of candor by those writing the letters.
President Thalmann pointed out that according to the California Labor Code Section 1198.5 (which he handed out at the meeting) employers are indeed required to allow their employees to inspect their files upon request. However, he further noted that there is an appellate court case that points out that access to letters can violate the rights of privacy of those writing the letters. While these rights can be protected by appropriate redaction of the letters, it is not legally clear if and how the university can properly do this. He also stated that it is not possible for employees to make copies of any items in the file that they did not sign. Regarding the last point senator Kosko responded by saying that according to the American Federation of Teachers employees indeed have the right to reproduce their file.
Several senators then took the floor to express their concern that the proposed access to redacted letters is not a good idea because a proper redaction is difficult to do and eventually the identity of those writing the letters will be revealed. It was also stated that such a change would not be well received since most other universities do not allow any such access to letters. Another senator said that redacted letters would not work and he read a resolution by the Faculty Council of the Marshal School of Business that stated that they would oppose any motion to allow faculty access to letters. In order to eliminate the major point of objection to the resolution a senator proposed to exclude any access to external letters. This amendment, however, was not seconded and was not considered further. Another senator suggested that the resolution should include a sentence that states that "internal letters shall be redacted to remove the identity of outside reviewers."
In response to a question by a senator regarding the current procedure Senator Kosko cited a case of a faculty member that has asked to have access to his file but the university general counsel objected to it. However after the faculty member hired an attorney and cited a proper legal basis for this, he was eventually granted access after several months. President Thalmann pointed out that the current practice varies among the different schools. He also mentioned that he has asked the Provost to explain the university policy on this issue and that the Provost indicated that he needed to consult with the general counsel on this matter and that he was willing to formulate a more uniform policy.
After some additional discussion, the resolution was not passed with 13 opposed, 10 in favor, and 1 abstention. Following the vote a senator suggested that it would be very helpful to ask the Provost to clarify the university policy in this area. President Thalmann agreed and thanked Senator Kosko for bringing this issue to the Senate's attention.
Agenda Item #3. Report on New Student Orientation
President Thalmann welcomed and introduced Cynthia Cherrey and Karen Rowan-Badger, both from the Office of the Vice President of Student Affairs.
Ms. Cherrey explained that they wanted to speak to the Senate regarding new student orientation which is a very important process for the overall student experience. She indicated that their office would like the faculty to help out with the transition of the students to the university. Ms. Rowan-Badger gave more details regarding the New Student Orientation Program. She explained that the program is not an event but a process that lasts for the student's entire first year. New students are helped to integrate into university life and have opportunities to interact with other students, faculty and staff. This process gives students support and helps them understand standards and expectations and facilitates their adjustment to the university's environment. A group of selected current students that have a diverse background and excellent academic record are involved in the program. The program also includes orientation for family members as well as several ways for the students to directly interact with the faculty.
A senator asked if Trojan integrity and student contact are covered in this process. Ms. Cherrey said that there are small groups of students who organize special sessions that address these issues. In response to a concern that the orientation process does not dedicate adequate time to academic issues, such as the selection of a major or the choice of classes, Ms. Cherrey pointed out that the various schools have special events for their majors and that more attention needs to be focussed on the undecided. Dean Sarah Pratt commented that indeed the orientation process of LAS is increasing the time dedicated to academics and that more time needs to be devoted to the decision regarding majors and minors. She also informed the floor that a project called "Learning Community" was set-up for new students and current students whose majors are undeclared. The project involves many faculty and helps students realize their academic strengths and weaknesses and gives proper direction to what is an appropriate major for such students.
Ms. Cherrey concluded her remarks by encouraging the senators and their colleagues to become more involved in this orientation process. She invited the senators to contact her by e-mail at cherrey@usc.edu for any questions regarding the new orientation program.
President Thalmann thanked Ms Cherrey and Ms Rowan-Badger for addressing the senate.
Agenda Item #5: New Business
(a) Resolution 98/99-08 re: Library
The following resolution was presented by Senator Peter Starr:
"Over the past several months, representatives of the University's Information Services Division have worked closely with University faculty to address the most pressing issues currently faced by those who work in or with the University's libraries. These include: the overcrowding of volumes in existing facilities such as the Seaver Science and Doheny Memorial libraries; the need to offer consistent service at a time of reduced staff, space, and material; problems with electronic cataloguing and the retrieval of stored materials; and changes in the nature of research in an era of rapid (but still uncertain) technological development. These discussions have been rendered more urgent by the sudden need to design and complete the retrofitting of Doheny Memorial Library, a project that offers both great opportunities and serious dangers for the future of libraries and scholarly research at the University of Southern California.
In the spirit of these efforts, it is resolved that the Academic Senate urges the University to: (1) commit to preserving print-based knowledge and to the scholarly and pedagogical enterprises that grow out of it; (2) increase its central budget for the library, both for the purchase of new materials (in a variety of media) and for the support of librarians and staff members; (3) coordinate plans for the "new Doheny" so as to make Doheny a welcome space for intellectual and cultural activities, while balancing this activity with the need to maximize the on-site storage of books, journals, and archival material; (4) consider the use of a temporary structure during the Doheny retrofit to maximize the number of books and journals available to students and faculty for immediate perusal and circulation."
Senator Starr explained that the lack of sufficient expenditures for print-based materials and an increasing focus by the Information Services Division (ISD) on new media would result in diminishing on-site stacks. Given the great value of browsing as well as access to new forms of information, the libraries should maintain a substantial collection of stacks while expanding access to new technologies. During further discussion on this issue it was noted that it is common for students and faculty to go to libraries at other universities for access to print collections.
Mr. Chris Ferguson of the ISD expressed his satisfaction with the timing and content of the resolution. He noted that this would be helpful during the presentation of the plans for library retrofits. Regarding the plans for Doheny and the other libraries during the retrofit period he explained that some of the proposed arrangements may not work as initially thought. For example the proposed temporary structure would probably cost too much and need a large footprint, while offering only a modest number of collections. Therefore it may be preferable to address more longer lasting concerns rather than these short-term benefits. senator suggested to revise the resolution to use a stronger language. After additional discussion, the resolution was passed as ammended with 20 in favor, no opposed, and two abstentions.
(b) Motion to Approve Section 4 of the Handbook "Faculty Student Relations"
President Thalmann informed the Senate that Section 4 of the Handbook has now been revised. A copy of this chapter was distributed at the meeting. President Thalmann thanked Past President Anderson who coordinated the revision of this section and thanked those who worked closely with him on this matter including Dean K. Servis. Dr. Anderson mentioned that during last year this section of the Handbook underwent a thorough review to remove obsolete information but it was not ready to be included in the new Handbook until now. President Thalmann explained that in order to avoid routine corrections in telephone numbers, addresses, etc, all purely informational items were removed and appropriate links were provided for them.
A senator asked Dean Servis to clarify the circumstances for giving a student the grade of incomplete and for the need to keep records for one year vs four years. Another senator asked for a more complete definition of a "Final Exam" and suggested to include the term "or equivalent" in the fourth paragraph which refers to retaking final exams. He also wondered if the term "accurate records" includes the final exams and said that submitting the grades four days after the final exams can be very difficult for some of the large classes. Dean Servis responded that final exams do not need to be kept as part of the records. He also said that it used to be required to submit the grades only three days after the finals but a more efficient system for grade processing allowed the extra time. He further pointed out that this time cannot be extended because students have a need to know their grade as soon as possible and student degrees cannot be posted until all grades are entered. Another senator also made the point that the required scheduling of exams only in the designated and pre-published places is too rigid since some of these locations may not be very accessible especially for students with disabilities. Dean Servis responded that such cases should be handled by the Office of Disability Services.
Due to time constraints, President Thalmann suggested to table this issue until the next Senate meeting. The Senate agreed with 21 votes in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.