Academic Senate
Minutes
Open Meeting at Health Science Campus
December 13, 2000
Present: F. Clark, A. Crigler, W. Dutton, M. Fusi (alternate for M. Apostolos), J. Gates, C. Julienne (alternate for S. Sobel), H. Kaslow, B. Kosko, J. Kunc, R. Labaree, W. Mack, J. Manegold, A. Mircheff, S. Murphy, J. Nyquist, M. Renov, H. Schor, D. Stram, M. Weinstein, M. Wincor, W. Wolf
Absent: K. Alexander, D. Bohlinger, W. Dappen, F. Feldman, D. Ghirardo, R. Goodyear, H. James, B. Knight, P. Knoll, D. Larsen, P. Nosco, M. Omar, J. Peters, E. Saks, B. Sarter, D. Sloane, B. Solomon, D. Walsh, B. Zuckerman
Guests: M. Bolger, L. La Corte, J. Landolph, D. O’Leary, L. O’Leary-Archer, D. Parker, M. Pearce, R. Rodriguez, H. Slucki, P. Valencia, B. Wood
Senate called to order at 2:55 p.m. by President William Dutton.
Meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.
Action taken by the Senate:
1. Approval of Minutes of the November 15, 2000 meeting (Agenda item #2)
Minutes approved without dissent.2. Approval of Resolution 00/01-04: Process for Amending the Faculty Handbook Agenda item #5)
Approved (Yea=15, Nay-5) resolution attached.
Announcements by President Dutton (Agenda item #1)
1. Professor Florence Clark, Chair of Occupational Therapy on the Health Sciences Campus, has been invited to fill a vacancy on the Senate Executive Board, created by Past President Bill Tierney's departure this month for a sabbatical in Australia. Professor Clark has agreed to serve, if approved by the Senate. The Senate approved her appointment without opposition and Professor Clark was congratulated.
2. The first Faculty Forum has been published and is focused on diversity. The editors invite expressions of interest or nominations of others to write on three general issue areas: a) distance education and distributed learning; b) the future of the library; and c) academic policies and procedures, from Senate reform to the tenure clock to sabbatical policy.
3. Retirement Policy. There are two important developments. First, the Provost in consultation with the Senate Executive Board and relevant committees is formulating a way forward in light of recent court rulings over age discrimination tied to unequal costs or benefits for those over or under age 65. An option will be presented at the earliest possible date. Second, the Provost has arranged for a small meeting of faculty with USC's attorney, representing us on retirement issues, so that we have a clear understanding of how he interprets the ruling of the U.S. Third Circuit Court.
4. Tenure Clock. The Tenure Clock Task Force met, 12 December. The chairman, Professor Timur Kuran, plans to meet again before the end of the year. A resolution might be introduced early in the Spring semester.
5. Dismissal Language, and other Handbook Matters: the Handbook Committee has been meeting and making progress on dismissal language and other matters. However, they are concerned that we first agree on the process for changing the Handbook, before introducing specific changes. We hope to accomplish that today.
6. The Executive Board will be requesting mid-term reports from committees to briefly indicate the issues on their agenda, and how they are progressing.
Discussion Items (Agenda item #3)
a. Distance Education and Distributed Learning Prof. Wood and Valencia
-President’s Leadership Retreat: Distance Education
-Digital technology, distance learning and the future of the library
-Information studies as a new interdisciplinary program
Prof. Beverly Wood summarized the retreat held on November 29th by noting that using Provost Armstrong’s paper on distance learning as a starting point the retreat focused on how would USC move into the distance learning environment? There were four foci at the retreat.
-Brand name ; Distance education efforts should support and strengthen the already established "brand name" USC has in the world.
-Undergraduate Admissions Distance learning could be a way to attract excellent students by providing programs aimed at good high school students.
-Flexibility on campus Distributed learning could provide more flexibly for students on campus such as by increasing the number of course offerings each semester.
Alumni education Distance learning programs could be used to keep graduates tied into USC as life long learners
Prof. Pablo Valencia discussed some of the international activities he is involved with at USC. He noted that the medical school currently has 20 plus collaborations throughout the world. In his international development role he has been approached by medical schools in various countries (e.g., Korea, Philippians, Cambodia, China, etc.) that would like USC to establish educational sites in those countries. The idea being that USC could offer both on-site and distance educational programming in those countries. While he noted that USC has declined such requests to date for on-site educational programs, the University is interested in developing a distance learning model. He noted that Johns Hopkins and other schools are already doing this in selected countries. Finally, Prof. Valencia noted that there may be significant barriers (legal, etc.) to certain types of distance education such as those found when trying to establish telemedicine activities and programs.
General floor discussion noted that USC is now in a reactive mode and will remain so for sometime. Distance education is better suited for professional and graduate education while distributed leaning is aimed at the undergraduate by providing electronic ways that enhance on campus courses. It was mentioned that as a west coast university, USC has things to offer that cannot be duplicated by east coast universities in the distance learning arena. Truly cultural sensitive distance learning programming will give us an advantage over our east coast rivals. Discussion pointed to a key issue: that is, is USC going to be ahead or behind the "curve" regarding distance education and what are the consequences for each. During the discussion it was mentioned that the Senate should also take a hard look at the opposing view points to distance learning. President Dutton stated that this and other faculty forums are the places where positive and negative aspects of distance learning can be fully explored.
Student representatives present noted that no students are represented on any of the administration’s or the Senate’s committees dealing with distance learning. They made a request to have student representatives on these committees since they are one of the major targets of distance and distributed learning efforts at USC.
President Dutton ended the discussion by pointing out that the University is currently moving ahead with its distance learning plans and is currently attempting to recruit a key person to organize and gain support for a distance learning initiative.
b. Compliance with New and Expanding Regulations on the Conduct of Research
-Strategies Underway at USC Ms. Laura La Corte
Executive Director, Office of Compliance
In her remarks Ms. La Corte mentioned that her office was established by the Board of Trustees to oversee and coordinate all compliance matters at USC. The Board of Trustee took this step after noting the tens of million dollars in fines other universities were paying resulting from such actions as Medicare audits.
The Office of Compliance deals with all governmental rules and regulations that apply to university research and other government funded actives including the following.
1) Interpretation of the government rules and regulations involving grants, contracts, Medicare billing, etc.
2) Conducts audits to be sure the University is in compliance.
3) Takes proactive measures with regard to regulations by providing education and guidance to faculty.
4) Reacts to pending regulations by informing regulators of undue and unforeseen burdens placed upon the University and the faculty.
Ms. La Corte noted that there seems to be many new federal regulations governing research and this trend will be continuing for sometime in the future. She also pointed out that her office sponsored this summer a series of educational programs that met the recent educational and compliance requirement for receiving NIH funded research. This series will be repeated and is also available on videotape. Finally, Ms. La Corte mentioned that whenever anyone has a question about compliance they should contact her office for information and/or guidance.-
- Faculty Rights and Obligations Prof. Walter Wolf
Following Ms. La Corte presentation, Prof. Wolf informed the Senate that the Senate had formed a Task Force on Faculty Rights and Obligations in Research Compliance and that its first meeting was on November 29. The Committee has 12 members (six each from the Health Science and University Park campuses). The Committee is directing its work to address 3 key issues:
1. The protection of free inquiry by faculty. There is concern that the burden of compliance demands may stifle the ability and the willingness of the faculty to explore areas at the cutting edge of science. There must be full protection of faculty doing advanced research, provided they comply fully with regulatory demands. And we, as a University, must act in concert with other Universities to ensure that regulations do not become unnecessarily burdensome.
2. That all administrative actions are in full agreement with the protection of faculty spelled out in the faculty handbook. We must maintain the principles of a collegial model of governance at USC, as opposed to a paternalistic/industrial model.
3. That administrative channels and lines of reporting of committees be clearly defined. While the two IRB's (HSC and UP) are doing excellent work and must be commended for the quality of their performance, the lines of authority and reporting are poorly defined and need to be clarified to ensure full faculty protection in our work.
Prof. Wolf then read the charges to the Task Force:
1. To identify and describe existing University structures and processes intended to ensure that researchers comply with accepted ethical and regulatory requirements on various categories of research undertaken at USC;
2. To discuss the adequacy and clarity of these structures and processes, with special emphasis on faculty rights, responsibilities, and obligations;
3. To identify any problems or issues raised by these institutional arrangements; and
4. To make recommendations, if any, for ways to address whatever problems might be identified.
General floor discussion: The student representative present asked that a student be placed on this committee.
Many faculty mentioned that these new federal governmental regulations are burdensome on the faculty and especially on faculty conduct of human subjects research. It was mentioned that existing and potentially new freedom of information acts by the federal government are having a "chilling" effect on research.
Ms. La Conte stated that one role of her office is to make new regulations as livable as possible for researchers at the University.
Report of Research Committee (Agenda item #4)
This item was skipped due to time.
Office of the Provost: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (Agenda item # 6)
No report, Vice Provost Levine not present, as he was on jury duty.
New Business (Agenda item # 7)
It was noted by a Senator that Provost Armstrong has not attended any of the meetings of the Academic Senate this year and encouraged the President to invite him to future meetings.
Prof. Kosko requested that the Executive Board find out how many faculty have been terminated by the University over the past several years.
Handouts at the Meeting:
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Academic Senate Meeting
Presidents Leadership Retreat of November 29, 2000: Group reports
Academic Meeting Schedule for the 2001 Spring Semester
Respectfully Submitted,
Jerry D. Gates, Ph.D.
Secretary General of the Academic Senate
Approved at the January meeting
Academic Senate
Resolution 00/01-04
Procedure:
1. A motion should be typed or hand-printed.
2. A motion should first be offered to the Executive Board for
review and advice on editing and parliamentary implication.
3. If changes are necessary, the motion should be recopied on
another form. Amendments may be indicated in the margin or on the
reverse of this form.
Process for Amending the Faculty Handbook
Whereas, "revisions to the Faculty Handbook are based on recommendations from faculty and administration. These recommendations are subject to review and consultation designed to lead to a joint formulation by the faculty and administration. The joint formulation, endorsed by the Senate, and adopted by the president, is published." (Faculty Handbook, 1998, Section 2-2 (E), pp. 16)
Be it resolved that,
The Academic Senate will use the following guidelines to reach a joint formulation:
1. Proposals to amend the Faculty Handbook can originate with any faculty member, a member or officer of the Academic Senate, the Academic Senate Executive Board, the Faculty Handbook Committee, a vote of the Senate, or the University administration.
2. A proposal will be communicated to the Academic Senate Executive Board, which should discuss it as appropriate. The Board will either return the proposal to those who originated it, along with the Board's rationale for not proceeding, or refer it, along with the Board's comments, to the Faculty Handbook Committee, or to a specially tasked group (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). If the Executive Board or the Handbook Committee returns the proposal, the interested party may bring the proposed amendment to the Senate for consideration.
3. The Committee, after review and consultation, may recommend to the Academic Senate, through the Executive Board, against proceeding with the proposed amendment. The Committee will provide the Executive Board with a written explanation of the rationale for its recommendation, and this explanation will be forwarded to the individual or group that proposed the amendment.
4. If the Committee recommends proceeding with the proposed amendment, or if the Academic Senate through a vote directs it to proceed, it will work jointly with the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and other concerned administrators to draft language for a joint formulation to be included in the Faculty Handbook.
5. The language drafted by the Committee will be referred to the Senate Executive Board. The Board will circulate the draft language to the Academic Senate, solicit written comments concerning the merits of the draft language and invite suggestions for revisions. Each suggested revision should be accompanied by a written explanation of the underlying rationale.
6. Comments and suggestions received by the Senate Executive Board will be forwarded to the Committee, which will then work jointly with the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs or other concerned administrators to consider further revisions. The Committee will then return draft language to the Board, along with its responses to the written comments and suggestions that have been received.
7. The Senate Executive Board will present a formal motion to the Academic Senate to endorse the draft language. It will also present the Committee’s report of its responses to the written comments and suggestions that were received.
8. If the joint formulation is endorsed by the Academic Senate and adopted by the President of the University, it will be incorporated into the Faculty Handbook.
Resolution Number: 00/01-04 Motion by: Faculty Handbook Committee
Date: December 7, 2000 (No second required when moved by committee)
To be presented at Senate meeting held: December 13, 2000
Action taken: Passed at December 13th Meeting (Yea = 14, Nay = 5, Abstentions = 0).