Academic Senate
Minutes of the April 21, 1999 Meeting

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

Absent: E. Accampo, M. Apostolos, H. Cheeseman, J. Gates, T. Gustafson, S. Hamm-Alvarez, M. Kann, B. Knight, L. Miller, W. Petak, D. Polan, K. Price

Guests: A. Levine, M. Levine, S. Pratt, W. Wolf

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 ballot for the Senate Executive Board officers election is due to the Senate office on April 30, 1999 at 5:00 p.m.

(b) The annual open meeting will be held on April 28, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. at the Faculty Center main dining room. The subjects for discussion will include the library and interdisciplinary teaching and research. A reception will follow.

(c) Vice President Dennis Dougherty indicated that some changes in the tuition remission policy are under consideration. These changes are needed because the rising standards of admission at USC result in an increasing number of eligible children of faculty and staff that cannot receive this benefit. Among the changes being considered is an offer of a certain percentage of USC tuition to be used at other schools. This issue will be discussed next year at various committees including the University Benefits Committee.

(d) The Task Force on Medical School Contracts is making good progress on its investigation but will take some more time before it can report to the Senate.

President Thalmann then introduced Kimberly Chen, the new undergraduate student representative to the Senate meetings.

With the arrival Provost Armstrong President Thalmann introduced him and indicated that Agenda items 3 and 4 will be considered before Agenda item 2.

The Provost began his remarks with some very positive comments regarding next year's class and he said that there was a 15% increase in student applications. Among the applicants only 33% were admitted and those admitted had an average SAT score of 30 points higher than last year. The Provost then talked briefly about the Program Review and praised the efforts of Vice Provost J. Hellige on this matter who will later discuss this issue in more detail.

Agenda item #3. Discussion of Faculty and Chairs/Deans Review

The main topic of the Provost's remarks was the review of faculty and chairs. He said that this issue was started with a Senate White Paper that led to the formation of a joint Task Force, resulting in a set of recommendations to the Provost. Following further comments by the Deans, a new policy is now under consideration using these recommendations as guidelines.

The Provost then made additional comments on this issue in response to questions and comments by Senators.

One senator said that the policy on faculty review should call for a range in salary increases for everyone whose work is satisfactory and above. Those who place in the middle of the five categories ought to receive raises that keep pace with the cost of living increases.

Regarding Department Chairs, a senator said that their review should be measured against their goals rather than be used as a disincentive against bad behavior. In response to another question by a senator regarding cases where the faculty are not happy with a chair who has been brought in from outside, the Provost stated that these chairs are told that their continuation in office depends on performance. Another senator pointed out that since the Chairs are not reviewed by the faculty, they may be tempted to always try to please the Deans. In response, the Provost indicated that the review of the Chairs should not be too unpleasant and agreed that some incentives are needed in order to induce good faculty to serve as Chairs and to encourage good performance. The Provost also agreed that a midterm review in a three-year term is difficult to do properly and it can take too much time. He suggested that instead of a formal review perhaps there should be a less formal information-gathering process.

In response to comments by a senator regarding the need to define the role of academic leaders, Vice Provost M. Levine indicated that the pending policy was modified from the initial recommendations in order to account for School-specific differences. The role of academic leaders is left up to each Schools to define. Also, School-wide committees are needed to evaluate incentives for chairs and their performance.

Other senators commented on the difficulties of doing these reviews properly. With both chair and faculty reviews, there is a need to avoid increasing the burden of bureaucratic paperwork through reviews that come too frequently. Questions were raised about the provision of the policy on faculty review for salaries to be set by the dean's exercise of judgment. Others expressed satisfaction with the idea that salary raises should be based on measures of quality and on faculty feedback.

It was also suggested that the lowest category of merit in faculty review, "unacceptable" should be changed back to "unsatisfactory," the term used in the sub-committee report. A senator expressed fear that an "unacceptable" rating can lead to dismissal, presenting a threat to academic freedom. The Provost responded that the procedure for dismissal is outlined in the Faculty Handbook which has built-in safeguards for academic freedom. The proposed policy does not change the dismissal process. Instead, it allows the recognition of faculty with successive "unacceptable" ratings (how long is less important) which can lead to the triggerring of the dismissal for cause procedures. Other senators expressed support for this provision of the policy.

Other senators noted that if faculty review is to be meaningful and useful, the university should provide resources for faculty development. A senator also pointed out that faculty would not communicate with their chair either because of fear of retribution or because it would lead to no results. Therefore there is a need to enforce the policy in the Faculty Handbook that chairs do not have tenure in office.

The Provost completed his remarks on this issue by inviting the senators to send him any additional comments by e-mail to provost@usc.edu.

In response to an inquiry regarding the reorganization of university administration the Provost replied that the Provost's Council is currently under minimal re-organization which would ensure that the Deans of some Schools are always included.

A senator asked the Provost if there is a policy regarding access to personnel files and if there is no formal policy asked him to explain how this was done in the past. The Provost replied that USC follows legal precedents on personnel files and indicated that the legal rights of those involved are being enforced. He then referred for any additional comments to Vice Provost Levine who said that if there are any discrepancies these issues are decided on a case by case basis. The senator then asked if this is written down anywhere. Although the Provost did not comment, another senator pointed out that this is now included in these minutes!

President Thalmann thanked the Provost for addressing the Senate.

Agenda Item # 4. Report on Program Review

President Thalmann welcomed Vice Provost J. Hellige who informed the Senate that the administration is instituting a process of Program Review which will take approximately 6 to 7 years to complete. The goal is to take a serious look at all programs, to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and to determine where they will be five years down the road. He indicated that this is a highly consultative process that would help to define the goals of the university and would facilitate resource allocation. The procedures and rules of how this will be done are now defined and they involve a faculty-driven process. The Provost will also sit in for the final presentation of the reports and a discussion will take place regarding the plan of action.

The first set of units to be reviewed were already selected on the basis of proper timing, such as upcoming accreditation, and other factors. In some cases these are individual Departments, while others may be entire Schools. For next year the review will be on the following Programs: School of Communication and School of Journalism in the Annenberg School for Communication, School of Education, Aerospace Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Department of Psychology-College of L.A.S., Department of English-College of L.A.S., Neuroscience program, and School of Theatre.

Vice Provost Hellige pointed out that this Program Review is not a search for troubled Programs and it is not punitive in nature. He also noted that after the initial set of reviews the process may be adjusted accordingly if warranted. He explained that the reviews will include three USC faculty who will write the final report to the Provost and two external experts that will be recommended by the academic units. He also agreed to update the Senate on the project.

Vice Provost Hellige then responded to a question regarding the Graduate School. He explained that, as of July 1, despite some rumors to the contrary, there will be a unit with the name "Graduate School". However, he said that as of July 1 this unit will not be headed by a Dean. The mission and budget of the Graduate School are also being revised. He indicated that there will be an office of Graduate and Professional Programs handled by his office in order to have more uniformity in the various Programs.

President Thalmann thanked Vice Provost Hellige for addressing the Senate.

Agenda Item # 2. Approval of February and March Minutes

The minutes of the February meeting were approved with 20 in favor, none opposed, and 3 abstentions.

The minutes of the March meeting were approved with minor amendments with 21 in favor, none opposed, and 4 abstentions.

Agenda Item #5. Resolution 98/99-10 re: Proposed By-law Amendment

President Thalmann explained that there is a need to clean-up some ambiguities that resulted in the past regarding voting procedures and quorum calls. He then presented the following resolution:

"It is resolved that Bylaw 3 should be changed to read: Except as otherwise provided for in the Constitution, 51% of the voting members of the Academic Senate constitutes a quorum. At all Academic Senate meetings, only members physically present at the time of the vote are eligible to vote on any question or motion. Once established, the presence of a quorum is presumed to continue until proven otherwise by a call to quorum which reveals the absence of a quorum. In the absence of a quorum, discussion may occur at the discretion of the chair, but no action shall be taken except adjournment to a specified future time."

After a brief discussion, this resolution was passed as presented with 23 in favor, none opposed and 1 abstention.

Agenda Item #6. Resolution 98/99-11 re: Amending Chair Selection Procedure in the Faculty Handbook.

The Senate moved to table the discussion until the next meeting. The motion was approved and seconded with 10 in favor and 8 opposed.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. _____________________ Respectfully Submitted, Nicos A. Petasis Professor of Chemistry Secretary General of the Academic Senate