Academic Senate
Minutes from December 9, 1998

Present: J.L Anderson, A. Crigler, D. Crockett, J. Gates, S. Hamm-Alvarez, V. Henderson, P. Heseltine, B. Kosko, H. Kaslow, R. Labaree, D. Leary, A. Mircheff, J. Nyquist, N. Petasis, M. Safonov, G. Schierle, C. Silva-Corvalan, C. Synolakis, W. Thalmann, W. Tierney, W. Waugaman, L. Wegner, M.Zeichner-David, R. Zimmer Absent: E. Accampo, G. Albrecht, M. Apostolos, W. Baer, M. Bolger, H. Cheeseman, F. Feldman, Guralnick, T. Gustafson, B. Jansson, R. Jelliffe, M. Kann, L. Miller, J. Nyquist, D. Polan, K. Price, G. Schierle, H. Schor, P. Starr, N. Stromquist, M. Weinstein, K. Wilber

Guests: D. Dougherty, S. Emerson, M. Gundersen, M. Levine, L. Macchia, M. Nichol, D. Stewart, W. Strippoli, 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 University has awarded the titles of Distinguished and University Professors to several additional faculty members. President Thalmann congratulated these faculty, including Professor Walter Wolf, who was present at the meeting. The current lists of faculty with these titles are as follows:

Distinguished Professors:

Professor Pierre Koenig
School of Architecture

Professor Ian Mitroff
Marshall School of Business

Professor George Olah
College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences

Professor Shabudin Rahimtoola
School of Medicine

Professor Walter Wolf
School of Pharmacy

University Professors:

Professor Warren Bennis
Marshall School of Business

Professor Leo Braudy
College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences

Professor Alexander Capron
School of Law and School of Medicine

Emeritus Professor Marshall Cohen
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and School of Law

Professor Caleb Finch
School of Gerontology and College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Professor Solomon Golomb
School of Engineering and College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Professor Kevin Starr
School of Policy, Planning, and Development and College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Professor Michael Waterman
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering

(b) The proposed Handbook is almost finalized and is waiting President Sample's signature. All modifications that were voted by the Senate last Spring and all minor changes made by the Executive Board during the Summer and Fall have been incorporated. There were a few issues that have not been resolved and therefore the language in the 1987 Handbook will still be in place at the mean time. Once the new Handbook has been in place, it will become a living document. When the Senate and the administration endorsed some change(s) to the new Handbook, the updated version will take effect on July 1st following endorsement of revision(s). The new version of the Handbook will be published in a web site and a hard copy will be available at the Academic Senate office.

President Thalmann thanked Vice Provost Levine for his help with editing and finalizing the new Handbook.

(c) In response to the Senate's concern raised at the November 1998 meeting, President Thalmann stated that the food workers at the Faculty Center belong to the union but are not participating in the ongoing strike.

(d) The floor has agreed that the minutes of the November Senate meeting will be presented at the January Senate meeting.

Agenda Item #2. Faculty Center Update

President Thalmann introduced to the floor Professor David Stewart, President of Board of Directors of the University Park Faculty Center. Dr. Stewart informed the Senate about ongoing plans to upgrade the facilities of the Faculty Center, which is extensively used by faculty, staff and other groups. He also invited the faculty to provide their input for these plans and to help decide what to include and/or what not to include in the new Center. Dr. Stewart mentioned that the proposed upgrade will be handled by the University Central Task Force which is composed of members of the Alumni Association, the Emeriti Faculty and the Board of Directors of the Faculty Center. Among the preliminary options being considered is a move to a new location or the replacement of the current structure with a new more effective facility.

In response to questions and comments from Senators, Dr. Stewart made further clarifications about the operation of the Faculty Center and the plans for its upgrade. He indicated that the Faculty Center is a self-supporting non-profit organization and a separate entity from the University, while its Board of Directors are elected by the faculty and staff during the Spring semester. He also stated that the HSC Faculty Center and the UPC Faculty Center are two separate entities.

A senator made the point that the Faculty Center should be more than a restaurant and that it should be the Center for Faculty Life, providing opportunities for the faculty to get together beyond their usual official meetings. For example it was suggested that the new Center should have facilities for Seminars or Lectures. Another senator suggested that the new Center should be integrated with the Student Center in order to promote faculty-student interactions. Dr. Stewart stated that discussions have been initiated towards the development of a possible integrated facility for students, faculty and staff. In response to another comment, he also indicated that the new Center may also include space for visiting faculty. A Senator also suggested that an effort should be made to include office and meeting space for the Academic Senate.

In response to a Senator's concern regarding the need for the faculty to pay Faculty Center dues despite the $50,000 subsidy from the University Faculty Benefit Pool, Dr Stewart explained that these dues are dictated by economic reasons. He also noted that some people, such as the USC Associates, are not required to pay dues for using the facilities of the Faculty Center. Finally, a Senator pointed out that in light of the ongoing successful fundraising campaign, it may be appropriate to seek prior commitments for all of these plans by the University, in order to ensure that the proposed upgrade will take place. Dr. Stewart responded by suggesting that this may indeed happen and it should be facilitated by the fact that the Board includes two USC Trustees. He closed his remarks by asking the Senators to contact him if there were any other ideas for the new Center or if are any other questions regarding the Faculty Center. President Thalmann thanked Dr. Stewart for addressing the Senate.

Agenda item #3. Dossier Section of the Handbook

President Thalmann presented to the floor the proposed replacement for the sections of the New Faculty Handbook titled: "Assembling Appointment and Promotion Dossiers" and "The Dossier," and explained how this problem has developed. A memo dated December 3, 1998, giving the detailed background of this issue, was sent to all Senators before the meeting for their preview. All back-up documentation were also attached to the memo. A Senator asked if faculty members are allowed to see their files after some time and President Thalmann responded by saying that this is a complex issue that requires further review. He also indicated that the University currently does not have a formal policy on this matter. However, faculty members that are denied a promotion can have access to letters included in their file after they have been redacted to cover the identity of those writing the letters. Following some additional discussion, the proposed removal of the sections on the Dossier from the Handbook and the proposed replacement with amendments were approved with 18 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention, which read:

"Proposed replacement for the Sections " Assembling Appointment and Promotion Dossiers" and "The Dossier" in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook"

The dossier should reflect and be the basis of both internal and external peer review of a candidate's fitness for appointment, promotion, or tenure. It should include balanced and accurate statements of the assessment of the case by faculty departmental and school committees, as well as by department chairs and deans. Candidates for appointment, promotion, and tenure should supplement their curriculum vitae or biographical information with a personal statement outlining their accomplishments and goals in teaching and research. The teaching record should be accompanied by evaluations of all pedagogic activity, including, but not only, classroom instruction. External letters of reference should be solicited from leading experts in the field chosen for their competence to judge the candidate's academic qualifications (to be documented by inclusion of their curricula vitae or biographical information in the dossier); wherever possible, such experts should be sought at peer universities, but it is recognized that they may be found at other institutions as well. Although some of the reviewers may be selected from a list of names provided by the candidate, most should not be from that list or have a close personal or professional relation with him or her. All letters of reference received must be included. The dossier also contains representative samples of the candidate's scholarship or professional performance and his or her service record.

Agenda Item #4. Resolution 98/99-04 "Technology Transfer: General Principles and Licensing Process"

President Thalmann informed the Senate that this resolution is arising from the white paper entitled "Entrepreneurial Activity and Property Development" which was presented at the August 1998 Senate Retreat. The white paper committee was chaired by Professor Martin Gundersen. Dr. Gundersen and Dr. Petasis explained how technology transfer works and why it is very important to revise the current policy which is extremely cumbersome. After some discussion, the following resolution was passed with amendments with 20 in favor, no opposed, and no abstentions:

"Technology Transfer: General Principles and Licensing Process"

Technology transfer has the potential to help the university develop top academic quality by stimulating excellent research and generating revenue that can be used to support academic goals. Because the opportunities for research exceed the capacity of the government and foundations to support it, and because of a growing interest on the part of corporations in this area, the climate is favorable for increased activity by universities in technology transfer. That USC now ranks 71st nationally in regard to technology transfer, whereas it ranks eighteenth in sponsored research suggests that the university might do more systematically to help faculty in patenting and licensing the results of their research. USC's high potential for the future, however, is reflected in its already being tied for fourteenth place in the number of start-up companies formed. One of the obstacles to technology transfer at USC, however, is the complex procedure, involving a multiplicity of offices, for evaluating invention disclosures. Comparison with other institutions suggests that this process is excessively complex and cumbersome.

Therefore it is resolved that the university administration and the Academic Senate, through a joint task force, should review and recommend improvements in current policies and procedures concerning technology transfer to complement the development of an intellectual property policy now in progress; that the task force should consider the adequacy of support given to technology transfer, including staff support; that guidelines should be developed to preserve freedom of research and maintain the fairness of licensing agreements; that it should be recognized that technology transfer will and must be inextricably related to academic quality and thus requires the involvement and direction of faculty in its development; that efforts should be made to increase awareness among faculty of opportunities for technology transfer and of the relevant legal requirements; and that the licensing process at USC should be simplified, in a way that preserves the central role of faculty in working closely with licensing associates to identify licensing opportunities collaboratively. The task force should report to the Academic Senate within ninety days of its establishment.

Agenda Item #5. Health Benefit Plans

President Thalmann welcomed Vice President Dennis Dougherty and Ms. Lisa Macchia, Director of Health Plans. They came to address the concerns raised by some members at the November Senate meeting about the administration's decision to replace Health Plans A&B with Plan C without consulting the faculty.

Ms. Macchia explained that this decision was the result of several factors:

(a) She pointed out that Plans A&B were quite unique. In their continuous effort to cut cost, health care providers no longer support such indemnity plans. With the idea that a 20% share in costs by the insured results in a more responsible use of the plan, once these providers find out that someone has additional insurance beyond the 80% coverage they lower their own coverage to 60% or a total coverage of 80%. (b) These Plans were sometimes used as Medicare Supplements. However, since these plans are employer provided they are considered primary plans and once Medicare finds out they stop their own coverage, resulting in lower benefits. (c) Many people that have additional HMO coverage when they are admitted to a Hospital they require calls to verify the additional coverage and they experience additional complications since the HMO doctor must approve the provided care and be primarily responsible. Overall these plans have led to several problems for many people participating in them. As a result, the elimination of Plans A&B and their replacement with Plan C was proposed to the University Benefits Committee, who adopted it unanimously.

Vice President Dougherty informed the Senate that the main charge he gave to the University Employee Benefits Committee was to lower the employee benefits rate, currently at 32.5%, in order to make more money available for salaries. He indicated that employee benefits is one of the most complicated issues that the university is dealing with. However, he said that the decision to change the Health Plans had nothing to do with cost-cutting and it was only a correction of the fact problems for many people participating in them. As a result, the elimination of Plans A&B "dysfunctional" and people found out at the worst possible moments, when they needed to use the coverage.

In response to a Senator's question, Ms Macchia indicated that Plan C actually offers more coverage on certain items, such as dental, prescription drug, vision, etc. Another Senator asked for an explanation on the urgency to carry out this change at the current year. Ms Macchia responded by saying that while Plans A & B were viable for some, they also created increasing problems for others. These employees were given the option to participate in another Plan or they were defaulted to Plan C. Another Senator complained that employees were not notified in a timely fashion and that these announced changes were actually received after the open enrolment period had ended. As a result there was no sufficient time to coordinate coverage with the spouse's Health Plan. Ms Macchia responded by pointing out that according to federal law if a spouse's benefits change the employer has to allow special enrollment in these cases in order to make necessary changes. She also said that the open enrollment period is adequate time for notice and that she regrets any delays in the dissemination of this information.

President Thalmann stated that timing was problematic this year and he suggested that future misunderstandings could be avoided with a broader representation of the faculty in the Employee Benefits Committee. It was suggested that in order to further involve the faculty in the decision-making process, some additional members of the Senate Environment Committee could also serve in the Employee Benefits Committee. Professor Michael Nichol, who was present at the meeting and serves on both of these Committees, indicated that both Committees would agree with these proposed changes. A Senator suggested that these decision involving Health Plans could be announced to the employees early by a letter, e-mail or the web. Ms. Macchia indicated that there is limited time available after the final decisions on possible changes are made in early Fall, and she agreed that a better a better system to inform employees should be explored. Additional concerns were raised regarding the timing and length of open enrollment and it was indicated that these are not legally defined.

At the conclusion of the discussion of the issue, a Senator suggested that the administration write a letter to all employees who were insured in Health Plans A&B. The letter should inform them that the administration will support a spouse's request to change his/her health plans during the non-open enrollment period. Mr. Dougherty and Ms. Macchia agreed to do it.

Finally, a Senator raised concerns to Mr. Dougherty regarding recent arrests of DPS officers, who were not removed immediately. The Senator also asked about the DPS oversight committee that is no longer in place. Mr. Dougherty responded that these officers were removed as soon as it was found out. He also indicated that the top leadership of the Department is very strong and experienced and that USC has one of the lowest crime rates. However, he noted these concerns and he indicated that he will look into this issue further.

President Thalmann thanked Ms. Macchia and Mr. Dougherty for addressing the Senate.

Agenda Item #6. New Business

A Senator raised the issue of access by faculty members to their own personnel files, in light of a AAUP's approved policy. Due to time constraints, President Thalmann suggested to the Senator to write a motion on this issue and send it to the Senate office for presentation at the January Senate meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

_______________
Respectfully Submitted,

Nicos A. Petasis
Professor of Chemistry
Secretary General of the Academic Senate