Academic Senate

Mini-Retreat

December 10, 2003

DRAFT

Notes

Present: M. Afifi, M. Apostolos, J. Brown, G. Davison, R. Garet, J. Gates (alternate for D. Stram), J. Glueckert, N. Hanel, E. Hollins, B. Kosko (alternate for M. Safonov), W. Mack, E. McCann, S. Montgomery, J. Moore, M. Nichol, J. Nyquist, G. Painter, P. Pattengale, K. Shing, P. Shrivastava, P. Starr, P. Vorderer, J. Walsh, M. Weinstein, E. Zemke

Absent: D. Ann, C. Betts, R. Cole, P. Conti, C. Fogu, E. Forrester, R. Garet, E. Garrett, E. Heikkila, P. Levine, N. Lutkehaus, R. Nishimoto, M. Omar, M. Renov, G. Schierle, W. Weber

Guests: B. D’Autremont, M. Levine, J. Manegold, L. McCann, L. Neinstein, E. Talley

President McCann called the meeting to order at 1:05 pm.

1. University Parking

President McCann introduced Brian D’Autremont (Director of Transportation Services) to the Senate for a discussion of the parking requirements and parking structure plans. He started by pointing out that there has been a net gain in spaces over the last five years, which might be contrary to faculty and staff understanding. There are two new structures in the process of planning at UPC, and a structure with 2,000 spaces being planned for HSC. He noted that the parking program still encourages employees to use the MTA and MetroLink subsidized passes as alternatives. There will be no increases in parking rates next year.

Over the next few years, each of the UPC lots will have paid daily parking at the ground level that will be independent from monthly parking. Parking has added trams during the middle of the day from Union Station. It was noted that it would be useful to extend the last HSC tram in the morning from Union Station to make it later than 9:00am. The need for additional reserved spaces was discussed.

2. Student Health Center/Faculty and Staff Clinic

President McCann then introduced Professor Paul Pattengale to initiate a discussion about health care accessibility for faculty, staff, and students. He introduced Dr. Larry Neinstein who directs the student health center. Dr. Neinstein provided an overview of the student health center activities, and the behaviors that place them at risk. It was recommended that the faculty access the student health center website to review the data that were presented. Dr. Neinstein pointed out that one of the critical threats to the University is real and potential infectious disease outbreaks. It was noted that there is little access for diagnosis and treatment for employees, in contrast to students. The Center is heavily utilized with more than 75,000 visits per year. In 1996-7, the center experienced approximately 35,000 annual visits. The student health center is now nationally accredited, has access to an extensive medical information system, and has improved the satisfaction level each year in the last 7 years.

There is presently a significant problem with space. At this time there is a need to triple the space available in the facility. The Senate raised issues regarding access to health care at the University Park Campus. It was noted that the downtown clinic has experienced significant financial difficulties and may not survive past this academic year. It was recommended that the Senate develop a position on a faculty/staff clinic in the near future.

3. Faculty Handbook Changes

President McCann introduced the main topics of this discussion. The first topic addressed was the impact of financial exigency on faculty within the unit. It was pointed out that last year’s Handbook Committee intended to make the financial exigency language more relevant to the individual unit. The AAUP language appeared to be insensitive to both large and small units and their impact on the overall University financial viability. Concern was expressed that there should be tangible, real evidence of financial exigency rather than some ‘projection’ of distress. The critical element is the disposition of faculty that would be displaced by unit closure. The over-arching intent is to protect tenure as the prevailing form of appointment. It may be useful for the Provost to have additional advice from the Executive Board or the President of the Academic Senate in such a case.

The second topic addressed the procedure for handling a dismissal. It was noted that it is important that the accused faculty member be contacted early in the investigation so that he or she is notified of the charges. The importance of notifying a faculty council executive board or the faculty council at the time that a question arises regarding a cause for dismissal was extensively discussed.

The third issue discussed was the addition of possible sanctions related to the sexual harassment policy. The recommended sanctions were reduction in salary or demotion, in lieu of dismissal. This recommendation originated with the Office of General Counsel. It was noted that the reference to a sanction of salary reduction of no more than 10% of the base salary was not clear.

President McCann indicated that the Senate is likely to see resolutions on these three issues in the near future.

4. November Minutes

A motion was made to approve the November minutes. The minutes were approved with one vote against, no abstentions (as usual, Senator Weinstein voted against the minutes).

5. Vice Provost’s Comments

Vice Provost Levine initiated his comments with a discussion of equal opportunity for employment. There has been an interest in expanding this policy to part-time as well as full-time positions. It was noted that in the past, departments may ask known colleagues to fill part-time positions without undergoing a formal process. It may be necessary and appropriate to recruit a pool of qualified part-time instructors for filling temporary part-time needs.

Vice Provost Levine reported that the Strategic Planning process has been expanded to include seven sub-committees working on specific areas of the plan. One of the emerging themes is ‘solving problems for society.’ A second theme of interest is ‘globalization’ and the relevant committees will be addressing this emerging area.

6. Emeritus Faculty Status

There was some discussion of the need to include the term ‘currently’ in the proposed revised language. It was also noted that there may not be a need to include a time component (ten years). It was recommended that the wordings of the first sentence in the definition be changed to “following their retirement…” rather than “at the time of their retirement…” There was discussion about the meaning of the term emeritus within the present University setting. It was explained that it was intended to recognize past contributions as an honorific. The Executive Board will bring this issue back to the Senate as a resolution.

7. Discussion of the Handbook Committee recommendations

President McCann asked if there were any issues that the Senate considered necessary for highlighting in the report of last year’s Handbook Committee.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mike Nichol, Ph.D.

Secretary General of the Academic Senate