General Faculty Meeting Friday October 12, 2012 Gonzaga … › gfs › GFM › GFM2012_2013 › gfmpacket... · 2012-10-03 · General Faculty Meeting Page 1 Octboer 12, 2012 General

General Faculty Meeting Page Octboer 12, 2012

1

General Faculty Meeting

Friday October 12, 2012

Gonzaga Auditorium, 3:30-5 pm

Agenda

1. Announcements 2. Approval of minutes:

a. September 5, 2012 (attachment, pages 2-6) b. September 7, 2012 (attachment, pages 7-16)

3. Brief demonstration of the new portal, my.Fairfield 4. Consideration of language requirement for DSB (attachment, page 17) 5. Proposed Handbook amendment from the Advancement Committee (attachments, pages 18-21) 6. Discussion of a vote of no confidence in President von Arx (attachment, page 22) 7. Adjournment

The meeting will be followed by a Gala Reception hosted by the Faculty Welfare Committee/AAUP


2

Fairfield University General Faculty Meeting

September 5, 2012 Draft Minutes of Meeting

These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

No votes using proxies were taken.

General Faculty Secretary Susan Rakowitz called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm and announced that the President had appointed Prof. Matthew Kubasik as 2012-2013 Chair of the General Faculty.

1. Announcements

Chair Kubasik reminded the faculty that there would be another meeting on Friday at 3:30, also in the Kelley Center. He then called on Prof. Pat Calderwood.

Motion [Calderwood/Second]: that Prof. Suzanna Klaf be invited to attend General Faculty meetings as an observer during the 2012-2013 academic year.

Motion passed without objection.

Prof. Kubasik also reminded faculty that the reception (which had begun before the meeting and would resume after the meeting) had been provided by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. He then called on SVPAA Paul Fitzgerald, S.J. for the introduction of new faculty.

2. Introduction of new faculty

SVPAA Fitzgerald began by introducing the new Dean of the School of Nursing, Dr. Lynn Babington. She comes to us from Northeastern University with degrees from the University of Michigan and the University of Washington. She brings educational experience and expertise leading and motivating people, building and energizing teams, leading strategic planning initiatives, building partnerships locally and internationally, designing curricula, developing standards, and promoting excellence in health care delivery and professional nursing education. Her scholarship focuses on understanding interdisciplinary teams, working with culturally diverse populations and addressing health issues of vulnerable populations, particularly immigrants and adolescents.

Dean Babington then took the podium to introduce the new faculty in the School of Nursing. Prof. Nancy Manister has degrees from Wagner College, Pace University, and most recently CUNY where she received several awards while completing her doctorate on role stress, eating behavior, and obesity in clergy. She has extensive teaching experience and strong clinical expertise in maternal-child health. Prof. Jessica Planas has degrees from UConn where she focused on assisting Hispanic populations in managing chronic diseases through goal setting. More generally, she has studied Latino health disparities, the care of vulnerable populations, health literacy, and ways of delivering effective health education during primary care visits. She also has an interest in global nursing and has participated in several service learning trips.

Prof. Valerie Madaffarri is a Visiting Assistant Professor who did her undergraduate work at the College of New Rochelle and earned her graduate degrees, including one of the first DNPs, from Fairfield. She is a family nurse practitioner with a focus on cardiology and medication management in older adults. Prof. Catherine Sumpio is also a Visiting Assistant Professor. She has degrees from Cornell and Yale where she studied treatment complexity, optimism, self-efficacy and coping in people with advanced stage cancer diagnoses. She also helped to develop a collaborative governance model for nurses at Yale New Haven Hospital.

At this point, Dean Susan Franzosa took the podium and called on the program directors in GSEAP to introduce their new colleagues.


3

Prof. Paula Gill-Lopez introduced Prof. Deborah Edelman, the new Director of Special Education. She began her career as a special educator in the public schools and developed Pennsylvania’s first Instructional Support Team Program. She moved on to higher education and comes to us from a tenured position at York College where she co-created a program in Special Education. She’s committed to teaching and her research includes numerous presentations and publications on students with ADHD.

Prof. Ingeborg Haug, stepping in for a semester while Prof. Rona Preli is on sabbatical, introduced three new, but familiar faces in the Marriage and Family Therapy Program. Prof. Nicole O’Brien is now in a tenure track position, having been a student, graduate assistant and adjunct faculty member at Fairfield. She is completing her Ph.D. at UConn looking at lesbian, gay and bisexual issues in marriage and family therapy. At Fairfield, she is Clinical Director of the program.

Prof. Maryann LaBella also began at Fairfield as a student and adjunct and is now a Professor of the Practice. She was the first graduate recipient of the Loyola medal. She worked in the corporate sector but since then has worked with underprivileged populations and families who have experienced trauma. She is the Clinic Administrator of the Koslow Family Therapy Center. Prof. Diana Mille is also a graduate of Fairfield’s MFT program and for 15 years she was the Director of the Walsh Gallery and an adjunct in Art History. Since earning her degree, she has presented research internationally and is here now as a Visiting Instructor.

Prof. Emily Smith from Educational Studies and Teacher Preparation introduced Prof. Jennifer Leffers who is here as a Visiting Instructor. She has been an adjunct here for three years and taught elementary school in Utah, South Dakota and Connecticut. She has a degree as a Reading Specialist from Teachers College at Columbia University and she will be the GSEAP liaison to the Early Learning Center.

Dean Jack Beal introduced Prof. Tim Talty, the new Chair of Electrical Engineering. He comes to us from a position as a Technical Fellow in Research and Development at General Motors where he focused on wireless technology in the automotive industry. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan at Dearborn and served as an evaluator for the engineering accrediting agency. Prior to GM, he worked for Ford and was an Associate Professor at the US Military Academy at West Point. His Ph.D. is from the University of Toledo in Ohio.

Dean Don Gibson then raced to the podium to introduce Visiting Assistant Professor of Accounting Mark Moyer. Because Prof. Moyer was teaching, Dean Gibson borrowed an empty chair from Clint Eastwood to which he directed his remarks. Prof. Moyer has adjuncted in the MBA program previously and has worked in industry for 30 years, most recently as CFO for the Institute of International Education which administers Fulbright scholarships. With degrees from Notre Dame and NYU, he has expertise in non-profit accounting, and he and his wife are renovating their 100 year old house in their spare time.

Dean Robbin Crabtree called on various College chairs to introduce the six new tenure track faculty and two Professors of the Practice in the College of Arts and Sciences.

Politics Department Chair, Prof. Marcie Patton introduced Prof. Lucrecia Garcia Iommi. She comes to us from Notre Dame where her dissertation was on the formation of the International Criminal Court. She has also studied the use of film and TV in teaching international relations. She will teach courses in three programs– Politics, International Studies, and Latin American and Caribbean Studies. On a personal note, she is from Argentina, but doesn’t tango.

Prof. Elizabeth Petrino introduced the newest member of the English Department, Prof. Carol Ann Davis. She has a BA from Vassar College and an MFA in Poetry from Umass Amherst. She has published two books of poetry, edited the literary journal, Crazyhorse, and directed the creative writing program at the College of Charleston. Her husband is also a poet and editor, they have two sons, and she has interests in swimming, visual arts, philosophy and early childhood literacy.

Prof. Mary Ann Carolan introduced two new faculty in the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures. Prof. Sara Diaz will be teaching Italian as a Professor of the Practice. She earned her degrees at


4

NYU, studying marriage in Dante, and taught at St. Thomas Aquinas College before coming to Fairfield. Prof. Michelle Farrell comes to the Spanish Program with degrees from Georgetown and Colby College. Her dissertation was on redefining Venezuelan national identities through cinema. She has received numerous grants for travel and has taught both Spanish and Portuguese as a lecturer at UPenn.

Prof. Dennis Keenan, standing in for Philosophy Department chair, Prof. Steve Bayne, introduced Prof. Toby Svoboda. He comes to us from Penn State and his work is on environmental ethics. He also marks a new era for the department as its first tenure track hire who is a vegetarian.

Prof. Angela Biselli introduced Prof. Bidyut Das who was a Visiting Assistant Professor in Physics for two years and is now a Professor of the Practice. He earned his doctorate at CUNY and works on projects related to cancer diagnostics. Since 1997, he and his wife have managed a residential high school in India that provides a free education to about 75 students each year.

Prof. Judy Primavera, chair of the Psychology Department, introduced Prof. Margaret McClure who has degrees from Fordham University and was most recently at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine as a post doc and Assistant Professor. Her specialty is clinical neuropsychology and she studies cognitive deficits in schizophrenia and spectrum disorders.

Prof. Nancy Dallavalle concluded the introductions with the tallest new faculty member, Prof. John Slotemaker. He comes to the Religious Studies Department with a specialization in medieval Christianity and degrees from the University of Washington, Fuller Theological Seminary, Duke Divinity School and Boston College. He studies the development of Trinitarian theology in the first 16 centuries of Christianity. He already has a number of publications, presentations and grants including, most recently, one necessitating many trips to Paris.

3. Remarks by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

SVPAA Fitzgerald began by noting the sidewalk and landscaping projects that were completed over the summer. They were done with funds left over from the bonds that were used to build the new residence halls. Those halls are all full with no forced triples.

He also announced some personnel changes that happened over the summer. Prof. Bharat Bhalla decided to retire outright rather than do phased retirement; he will be celebrated at this spring’s retirement reception. Prof. Al Benney will retire at the end of this year, but he’s now moving his video religious scholarship onto the Digital Commons. Prof. Adam King resigned to pursue other interests. Prof. Anibal Torres left for a position at another university. We wish all of these faculty well and thank them for their service.

VP of Enrollment Management Judy Dobai left in June, but the incoming freshman class is a testament to her work. Her departure led to some reorganization. Dean of Enrollment Karen Pellegrino will oversee both undergraduate admissions and financial aid, with Lindsay Johnson serving as Senior Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions and Diana Devellis as Senior Associate Director of Financial Aid. Marianne Gumpper continues as Director of Graduate Admissions, but her office will also handle admission of part time students and will report directly to the SVPAA.

The class of 2016 has 993 students at the moment and is academically the strongest class we’ve had in over 10 years. It includes 50% more Magis scholars than last year. It is a strong cohort that will need to be challenged and engaged intellectually because we sometimes lose strong students who feel insufficiently challenged. He urged the faculty to “throw heat”. It was a talented applicant pool and we hardly went to the wait list. We have 62 Magis scholars, 10 Community Partner scholars, and some students who turned down BC or Georgetown to come here.

The middle 50% of admitted students scored between 1690 and 1910 on their SATs. Students were mostly from the top 20% of their high school classes. 27% of applicants and 35% of confirmed students chose the test optional route. With regard to male/female balance, 38% of the class is male; SVPAA Fitzgerald said he refuses to discriminate against bright young women. There are 55 freshmen who are commuters, but they


5

are all in cornerstone classes and have swipe access to the dorms linked to their cornerstone classes. There are 117 students of color, just under 12% of the class, which is a smaller percentage than last year. 20% of the class are first generation college students.

The students come from 22 states and 6 countries with 19 international students (versus 4 last year). He acknowledged the work of Mr. Chris Johnson and Mr. Alejandro Martinez in recruiting international students and announced the recent hire of Ms. Shea Spitz to work with international students on campus and recruit new international students. He noted that our international students, unlike those at many other universities, are socioeconomically diverse.

At this point, SVPAA Fitzgerald thanked the many faculty and staff members who helped in the community effort of recruiting the class of 2016. He noted that the discount rate for the current freshmen class is three points lower than for the class of 2015.

Graduate programs met their summer enrollment targets with a big push from GSEAP which was well over projections. Fall graduate enrollments aren’t yet finalized but they look to be on track.

The freshmen to sophomore return rate was 88% last year and so far is 92% this year, the highest rate in at least 10 years. He attributed this success to the exploratory advising program, the reworking of the FYE program, and much of the work of Assoc. AVP Beth Boquet, especially in reconceiving the cornerstone courses last year. These programs all contribute to engaged learning, and the system of early, midterm and late alerts also helps.

SVPAA Fitzgerald then announced that Prof. Boquet would be returning to the faculty at the end of this semester. He described her service in the Office of Academic Engagement as delightful, intelligent and innovative. She transformed advising, peer mentoring, peer tutoring and cornerstone courses. She forged deep collaborations with the division of Student Affairs. He thanked her for her invaluable work. She will be on a research leave in the Spring. SVPAA Fitzgerald will soon put out a call for nominations for her replacement. The areas that report to her and will report to her successor include Academic Engagement, Exploratory Academic Advising, Undergraduate Academic Planning, the Center for Academic Excellence (CAE), Project Excel, Upward Bound, the Health Professions Program (which had 100% success again this year), the Writing Center and Pre-Law Advising. He took this moment to thank Prof. Don Greenberg for his work as Pre-Law Advisor and announced that Prof. Sharlene McEvoy would be taking over that role.

Currently there are 18 students working on Fulbright applications. He thanked Prof. Janie Leatherman and Mr. Jermain Griffin and a host of faculty advisors for helping students with their applications. With regard to study abroad, he said that last year, for the first time, the majority of students in our programs were non-Fairfield students. He thanked Mr. Chris Johnson for his work on those programs. He plans to reassemble a faculty committee around international programs to help students get the most out of their experiences.

SVPAA Fitzgerald next turned to assessment. The five-year NEASC report (put together with the help of a number of faculty and administrators under the guidance of Assoc. AVP Mary Frances Malone and Prof. Christine Siegel) required data on the assessment of student learning and the use of those outcomes to feed back into pedagogy. NEASC mandates that we have clear, mission-consistent goals for student learning, that we regularly assess achievement of those goals and then use the resulting data to make continuous improvements in our programs. He said that our goals are to produce students who are: committed to academic excellence; integrative learners; and instilled with a sense of civic and/or social responsibility. These goals are consistent with the core pathways, but we must be more intentional about helping our students to understand the pathways. He suggested that because the professional schools generally receive goals from their accrediting agencies, they are more experienced with assessment and could help the College in that regard. At the same time, the College can help the professional schools integrate the core pathways into their courses. We need to be able to demonstrate that we’re doing what we say we’re doing. We have good graduation and retention rates, but we need direct evidence. The CAE will help; this needs to be a community project.


6

He thanked Prof. Calderwood for agreeing to take over as director of the CAE. He announced that Prof. Roben Torosyan left for another position and he was happy to promote Prof. Klaf to Assoc. Director of the CAE. Prof. Calderwood plans on involving more faculty in leading CAE projects. For example, Prof. Cinthia Gannett will lead writing projects across the campus. Prof. Siegel will continue to be a resource for departments working on assessment. There are a number of other programs underway- faculty should pick up the Center’s brochure or check out their website for more information.

In a final set of announcements, he said that full funding has been restored to the Research Committee this year. Summer money can be used as salary or to pay students. Michael Fahey, S.J., Professor Emeritus from Marquette and longtime editor of Theological Studies will be here this year as a scholar in residence. He has offered to work one on one with anyone preparing a late stage manuscript for submission. Prof. Dallavalle has graciously agreed to continue as Faculty Facilitator for Mission and Identity. She is organizing a range of programs to be held throughout the year, so watch for invitations. Moody’s has affirmed Fairfield’s A3 rating and revised the outlook from negative to stable.

Finally SVPAA Fitzgerald announced that he wouldn’t be at Friday’s meeting and never votes on the MOU anyway, but he urged the faculty to accept the MOU. He said that we’re in good shape and the 95th percentile guarantee is still there.

Prof. Kubasik then asked for questions.

Dean Babington briefly announced that Prof. Suzanne Campbell had left for the University of British Columbia. SVPAA Fitzgerald deeply apologized for having forgotten to include Prof. Campbell’s departure in his opening list of personnel changes. He thanked her for her service to the university and to the School and Nursing.

Prof. Rick DeWitt asked about the admit and yield rates for the class of 2016. SVPAA Fitzgerald said the admit rate was 71% and the yield was 15.1%. Prof. DeWitt noted that that was the lowest yield rate ever and with 35% of the class test optional he wanted to know what the criteria were for claiming that this is such a strong class. SVPAA Fitzgerald said he would get back to him with that information.

A motion to adjourn was uncontested at 5:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Prof. Susan Rakowitz Secretary of the General Faculty


7

Fairfield University General Faculty Meeting

September 7, 2012 Draft Minutes of Meeting

These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty. Proxies were held by: for:

Bill Abbott Paula Gill Lopez Mousumi Bose Godbole Arjun Chaudhuri Mousumi Bose Godbole Valeria Martinez Bruce Bradford Ahmed Ebrahim Bruce Bradford Milo Peck, Jr. Dorothea Braginsky Judy Primavera Kevin Cassidy Ed O'Connell Robbin Crabtree Ellen Umansky Mark Demers Janet Striuli Joe Dennin Paul Fitzgerald, S.J. Joe Dennin Don Greenberg Ryan Drake Chris Staecker Ryan Drake Sara Brill Johanna Garvey Peter Bayers Shannon Gerry Amanda Harper-Leatherman Shannon Gerry Anita Fernandez Cathy Giapponi Cheryl Tromley Don Gibson Ying Zhang Gisela Gil-Egui David Crawford Joy Gordon King Dykeman Joy Gordon Marie-Agnès Sourieau David Gudelunas Maggie Wills Olivia Harriott Ashley Byun James He Patrick Lee Linda Henkel Michael Andreychik Diana Hulse Barbara Welles-Nystrom Hugh Humphrey Jim Long Meredith Kazer Sally Gerard Phil Lane Kurt Schlichting Phil Lane Alfred Benney Mark Ligas John McDermott Diana Mager Sheila Grossman Dawn Massey Jo Ann Drusbosky Dawn Massey Michael Coyne Laura McSweeney John Lasseter Irene Mulvey Ben Fine Irene Mulvey Rona Preli Nicole O'Brien Diana Mille Nicole O'Brien Ingeborg Haug Tod Osier Jen Klug Marcie Patton Gwen Alphonso Elizabeth Petrino Sally O'Driscoll Shelley Phelan Geoffrey Church Rajasree Rajamma Nikki Lee-Wingate Rajasree Rajamma Camelia Micu Gita Rajan Mousumi Bose Godbole Susan Rakowitz Angela Biselli Giovanni Ruffini Eric Mielants Giovanni Ruffini Anna Lawrence


8

Sallyanne Ryan Michael Pagano Mark Scalese, S.J. César Maldonado, S.J. Joyce Shea Jaclyn Conelius Jim Simon Aaron Perkus Kraig Steffen Jessica Davis William Vasquez Dina Franceschi William Vasquez Anna-Marie Aksan Joan Weiss Peter Spoerri Joan Weiss Chris Bernhardt Jiwei Xiao Mary Ann Carolan

Chair Matthew Kubasik called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. 1. Announcements Prof. Kubasik reminded the faculty that the meeting would be followed by a gala reception hosted by the FWC/AAUP. He then announced his choice of parliamentarian for the year, Prof. Irene Mulvey. 2. Approval of the minutes of 5/31/12

Motion [Lane/Scheraga]: To accept the minutes of 5/31/12 as circulated. Motion passed without objection.

3. Consideration of a 2012-2013 Memo of Understanding/Benefits Plan Overview Prof. Joe Dennin, chair of the 2011-2012 Faculty Salary Committee (FSC), began with the announcement that even though the parking pamphlet doesn’t make it clear, faculty with parking stickers can park in any legal spot on campus except for a small set of reserved spaces. They are encouraged to park in the blue lots but are not required to do so. If you get a ticket for parking in a legal spot not in a blue lot, don’t pay it, but contact SVPAA Fitzgerald or any member of the FSC. He then explained that the FSC is recommending that the faculty approve the Memo of Understanding (MOU) that was arrived at last June following collegial discussions with the administration. It was a very difficult year for a number of reasons. Two big issues were discussions on health care and the 95th percentile. It was also difficult because the administration had trouble being decisive about what they wanted and they had trouble with following process. These problems began with the incorrect assurances they offered regarding proposed life insurance changes in the Fall and more recently included having to send out contract extension letters twice because the first one had not been reviewed by the FSC before being sent out as required by the Faculty Handbook. The FSC had sent the administration a draft extension letter. The administration edited it and then sent it out without coming back to the FSC. This behavior both violates the Faculty Handbook and the principles of shared governance. When the FSC brought the problem to their attention, the administration apologized, reached agreement with the FSC on a new contract extension letter, and then sent out the new letter. Prof. Dennin next presented an abridged chronology of the events that brought us to this point. When the FSC began meeting with the administration last October, the administration was looking


9

for “givebacks” in the already approved 2011-2012 MOU. They discussed and argued over the proposed givebacks for months. By the time that issue went away and MOU discussions began, it was already early February. He quoted from a letter from President Jeffrey von Arx, S.J. from March 29 stating that the administration was committed to maintaining the 95th percentile for the coming fiscal year and was looking forward to developing a new benchmark in the coming year. In April, Vice President for Finance Julie Dolan reiterated the fiscal 2013 commitment to the 95th percentile and said that if the faculty voted down the administration’s proposal at that point, the administration would issue new letters of appointment with their retirement contribution reduced to 8% and faculty health care cost sharing increased to 12%. Those terms were reiterated by Pres. von Arx on May 3 as being the terms in the budget approved by the Board of Trustees. The President at that time confirmed that the 95th percentile would be maintained for the upcoming fiscal year, but argued against having a benchmark as more than just a goal. On May 17, the administration did suggest language that would keep the 95th percentile until a new benchmarking system was in place, and that expanded on the longstanding “financial limitations” clause. On May 30, the administration offered language that defined financial limitations as depending “on an unrestricted year-end surplus in the operating budget. While the commitment to faculty compensation is a high priority among the University’s needs, the specific disposition of any unrestricted year-end surplus for this or any other purpose remains at the discretion of the President.” They further proposed that, “In the event that the Administration and Faculty Salary Committee cannot arrive at an agreed upon, revised benchmarking system, such dispute shall be resolved by the Board of Trustees.” All of these proposals were rejected by the FSC. In short, MOU talks began with a one-year guarantee of the 95th percentile perhaps followed by no benchmarking, to some continuation of benchmarking, to the current proposal in which the 95th percentile remains until replaced by something the faculty and administration have mutually agreed to. Reference to the Board resolving an impasse on benchmarking was definitively removed by the administration during the discussions. With regard to the fiscal terms, the administration’s initial proposal was up to 15% for cost sharing of healthcare premiums, then 12%. In the final agreement, now under consideration, health care cost shares are restored to the current contribution of 10%. Prof. Dennin noted that although the FSC doesn’t directly negotiate for the staff, a result of our MOU seems to be that maintaining the cost sharing contribution of 10% was extended to the staff. How did we get here from where we began? Prof. Dennin explained that the FSC spent many hours in meetings with each other, with the administrative team, with the FWC attorney, and even with the President. He noted that this year was the first time in his memory that the President met with the FSC; in a meeting this year, President von Arx tried to convince the FSC that the 95th percentile was no longer viable. Representatives from the FSC, with other faculty representatives, also met with the Board of Trustees. Prof. Dennin emphasized the importance of the tremendous support of the faculty throughout this process. The FSC didn’t even bring forward earlier MOUs proposed by the administration, but when they did present the gist of the administration’s proposals to the faculty, the General Faculty rejected them overwhelmingly by votes on the order of 180-0. Those votes, along with the support of the FWC, both the work of the Action Committee and the financial support (roughly $3400) to consult with an attorney, have been crucial. This has been a political battle so having a unified faculty has been essential. He took this opportunity to make a pitch for joining the FWC and noted that some university staff have recently unionized.


10

Moving to the specific terms, Prof. Dennin stated that this isn’t a good MOU, but given the economy and where the administration started from, it’s ok. Compensation will go down about 1%, maybe more depending on life and health insurance. The administration had proposed a 1% raise and reduction from 10% to 8% in retirement contribution. The FSC surveyed the faculty and found a strong preference for 0 increase in salary and retirement contribution reduction only to 9%. The FSC also preferred that structure because salary is renegotiated every year but benefits might be harder to reinstate. Maintaining health care cost share at the current contribution of 10% came very late. As is the case now, one pays 10% of option 1 or the HSA plus 100% of any additional enhancements. The proposal does not include the 6% cap on the rate of cost share increase that we’ve had in place for the last 3 years, which is a bit of a gamble. But costs have increased consistently about 6% a year over the last 3 years and the early data for this year give no indication of major increases. Had the total cost share been increased from 10% to 12% of the premium, that would have been a much bigger increase than a 6% increase on the cost share amount. The cap is more relevant in the context of a multi-year agreement. Additional changes: employer provided life insurance will now have a cap of $50,000, with an option to buy more at “reasonable” rates during a window before this change is made; office copays will increase from $20 to $30; copays for generics will be unchanged, but formulary prescriptions will increase from $20 to $25 and non-formulary drugs will go from $30 to $40. The effects of these changes will vary dramatically depending on individuals’ use of prescriptions and office visits. Prof. Dennin suggested that individuals with lots of prescriptions and office visits might want to look into the HSA option. With regard to the 95th percentile, Prof. Dennin reiterated the administration’s opening proposal - the administration either wanted to do away with the commitment completely or maintain it for just one more year. Now it continues until there’s a mutually agreed upon replacement. The last sentence of the relevant paragraph (section F) says that “The revised benchmarking system shall be in place for the 2013-2014 MOU”. He explained that “revised” doesn’t necessarily mean “new”, it may still be the 95th percentile. There are two issues here – what is the benchmark and how does a shortfall get made up. Prof. Dennin’s impression, by the end of the year, is that the administration was less concerned about the benchmark itself than about how to make up a shortfall. He acknowledged that the two key sentences (“…until an agreed upon, revised benchmarking system, to be developed through collegial discussions between the Faculty Salary Committee and the Administration as part of the MOU process, is in place.” And “The revised benchmarking system shall be in place for the 2013-2014 MOU.”) can contradict each other. What happens if we don’t reach agreement? The FSC felt that “agreed upon” was essential in the earlier sentence or the administration wouldn’t have any incentive to negotiate. The administration wanted to say that the Board of Trustees would resolve an impasse, but the FSC insisted that that language would give the administration no incentive to negotiate. The current ambiguous language was the compromise reached in June. On June 22 with the FSC considering that they would bring this MOU to the faculty with a recommendation to approve, Prof. Dennin emailed the proposal to the FWC attorney, asking whether there was anything crucial the FSC missed in section F on the 95th percentile, and about letters of appointment which the administration was threatening to send out at that point.


11

The attorney noted the issue of the two key sentences and found it was a bit strange that no process was specified guaranteeing that a benchmarking system would be in place next year, but Prof. Dennin explained that that was because the only process the administration would agree to (i.e,. the Board resolves an impasse) was unacceptable to the FSC. The attorney said that this year, the 95th percentile protections were the same as always. Prof. Dennin added that in the last few weeks, a few faculty have requested that a written opinion be obtained from the attorney and shared with the faculty. The Faculty Welfare Committee authorized this further consultation. He then turned the presentation over to fellow FSC member, Prof. Debra Strauss. As background, Prof. Strauss explained that she has a law degree and has practiced law, litigating extensively in the court system and clerking for a federal judge. As a member of the FSC, she believes it’s essential to have independent legal counsel, but she is happy to provide legal context. As Prof. Dennin explained, the FSC consulted the FWC attorney in June on the current language. Later in the summer, there were no new issues, but an individual not authorized by the FWC contacted the FWC attorney thereby creating a potential conflict of interest and raising confidentiality issues. She read the following email from the attorney:

I am sorry to hear of the faculty divisions on the proposed new MOU. The divisions can only serve to strengthen the University in its long running efforts to weaken faculty benefits and terms of employment. As the old cliché states, “United we stand, divided we fall.” With respect to the 95th percentile issue, the language in the proposed new MOU is clearly less favorable for the faculty than the language in recent MOU’s. That said, the more relevant issue, as I mentioned in my brief conversations with Rick, is whether the proposed language on that issue is, in the overall give and take of the recent negotiations, the best that could be achieved. Since I was not involved in those discussions, I cannot express an opinion on that question. For the same reason I cannot express an opinion or recommendation on whether the faculty should approve the proposed MOU. However, I have absolutely no reason to believe that the faculty representatives in the recent MOU negotiations did not carry out their responsibilities honorably and to the best of their abilities.

Prof. Strauss said that it was not unusual for a lawyer not to offer a stronger statement. No practicing lawyer would describe any legal case as a “slam-dunk”. She said that the FSC and administration had had many discussions about the exact wording in the final sentence of section F, particularly over whether the verb should be “shall” or “should”. But the most important point was that the administration wanted the Board to have final approval and the FSC can document the fact that the FSC rejected and the administration ultimately withdrew their proposal that the Board would impose a system if no agreement is reached. This MOU states that the current commitment to the 95th percentile continues and that any revised benchmarking system must be agreed upon. The FSC is committed to beginning a good faith discussion with the administration on this and other compensation issues for the next MOU. Prof. Strauss continued by explaining why she thinks we’re in a position of strength. She said that the FSC is not worn down, they’ve had the strong support of the faculty and this is the only proposal they’ve brought forward for approval. They bring it forward not with an apology, but as the best offer possible at this time. They believe that the strong political actions organized by the


12

FWC Action Committee led to the invitation for a small group of faculty leaders representing the Faculty Secretary, the FSC, the Academic Council, and the Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees to address the full Board in June. The group made strong arguments, especially about the 95th percentile. They also articulated the problem when the administration is not empowered to work with the faculty. The group’s goal was to firmly and reasonably try to get the Board to back off. It seemed to work. At the meeting, a Board member asked, since we’re now at an impasse, don’t we determine compensation? Faculty responded that we don’t believe we’re at an impasse and we want the administration empowered to work with us. If the administration is so empowered and we then reach an impasse, our documents are unclear on what happens next. Prof. Strauss said she reminded the Board of the recent precedent - in June 2009 we had not reached agreement on an MOU by the end of the academic year. The FSC and administration worked over the summer to reach agreement, the administration issued contract extension letters, and the General Faculty approved the MOU in the Fall, at which point the administration sent out new contracts. The week after the meeting with the Board, the FSC had another meeting with the administration team. The latter reported that the Board had “heard” the faculty. They offered everything the FSC had requested in its last proposal, and more. The FSC had requested healthcare premium cost sharing of 11% (vs. the administration’s longstanding proposal of 12%), and after the Board meeting, the administration went back to maintaining the current contribution of 10%. Prof. Strauss pointed out that if we accept this MOU, we will enter this year’s negotiations from a position of strength. She said that the FSC has no intention of giving up the 95th percentile as a benchmark. We can tweak its implementation, which is the benchmarking system, but it’s important now to set the precedent of the Board letting the administration negotiate with faculty. At this point the informational presentation ended and Chair Kubasik asked for informational questions. Prof. Steve Bayne asked, once it became clear that there was optimism for the size of the incoming class, was there discussion about restoring some of the cuts. Prof. Dennin said that the FSC raised that point, and proposed linking the retirement contribution to the October enrollment numbers, but the administration said that the budget isn’t just about freshmen enrollment. He said he will recommend that the FSC argue this Fall for restoring the retirement contribution. Prof. Faith-Anne Dohm asked about the clause in our contracts that says they will be renewed on the “same or better terms”. Prof. Strauss said that the FSC asked the attorney about that clause last fall around the question of givebacks. He said that if we voluntarily accept worse terms, it doesn’t weaken the clause, but it does change the comparison point for the next contract. Prof. Dennin acknowledged that although the meaning of “terms” is unclear, compensation will go down for most people. Prof. Wendy Kohli quoted the following motion approved 185-0 by the faculty in April: “The General Faculty directs the FSC to return to discussions with the administration to work towards a MOU containing the original or equivalent language on the 95th percentile and financial terms that, in the opinions of the attorney consulted by the FSC with support of the FWC Steering Committee, meet current contractual obligations.” She suggested that our solidarity in April gave the FSC the power to negotiate but the current proposal doesn’t seem to meet the terms of the unanimous


13

motion. Prof. Dennin said that the 95th percentile does have the same status as always for this year. It’s not as strong for the future, but this is a negotiation.

Motion [Dennin/Sapp]: To accept the proposed 2012-2013 Memo of Understanding circulated with the materials for the 9/7/12 General Faculty meeting.

Prof. Joy Gordon said that a few weeks ago, she and Profs. Rick DeWitt and Joan Van Hise shared concerns about the proposal and felt it was important to get a clear, thorough legal opinion. She explained that she is also an attorney and has a background in contract litigation. They got legal opinions from three attorneys, all of whom agreed that the proposed changes were clearly detrimental to the faculty and put the faculty at risk of having their entire compensation structure determined by the administration. (While Gordon spoke, the opinions were distributed to faculty members.) She explained that the word “shall” is mandatory under Connecticut law. While it has been argued that the ambiguity in the proposal isn’t a problem because it’s ambiguous for both sides, the faculty isn’t determined to get rid of the 95th percentile as the administration is. If we vote to approve the MOU, we’ve handed the administration exactly the argument they need to do this. The FWC newsletter notes that the administration wanted language giving the Board the authority to impose terms, but the fact that we can document the administration’s withdrawal of this language isn’t relevant. Earlier proposals and intentions are irrelevant. If the Board unilaterally imposes a new benchmark, the language places no limits on what it will be. She continued with consideration of what will happen if we don’t accept the MOU. We’ve heard that other provisions in the contract documents give the administration or Board broad power to do what they want, but those provisions don’t give unbounded power. The contract provision must be interpreted as a binding promise that is not to be suspended at will. With regard to the “financial limitations” clause, the courts are not particularly lenient in allowing universities to invoke financial limitations. There must be an imminent financial crisis threatening the institution. Some have questioned whether we should fight now or later. Prof. Gordon argued that if we accept these terms, we’ll be in a significantly worse position next spring. All of the attorneys consulted agreed that if we reject the MOU, the terms of the current MOU remain in place until superseded. The administration and the Board can’t arbitrarily invoke financial limitations or pass a new budget to cut our compensation. Hopefully we won’t agree to terms that allow the Board or administration to unilaterally alter the compensation structures for which we’ve fought so hard. We need a new proposal with an agreement to replace the 95th percentile only if we agree on a replacement. Prof. Strauss responded that if there are ambiguous terms in a contract, then all evidence about prior intentions is relevant. She also said that the Board has not tried to invoke financial limitations. The language at issue is the statement in the MOU that says that if the faculty and administration can’t reach agreement on an MOU, the budget approved by the Board determines compensation. A lawsuit would be about competing clauses and research can be found supporting both sides. It’s not clear who would win, but our attorney advised us that it would cost at least $300,000 and take at least 2 or 3 years. She said that there’s no such thing as a slam-dunk in legal cases. We’ve lived with ambiguity in our contracts for years, and the FSC will not come back with any proposal abandoning the 95th percentile. Prof. Dawn Massey asked whether Prof. Strauss was speaking as an attorney or a member of the FSC. Prof. Strauss repeated that she was providing legal context as a law professor.


14

Prof. Betsy Bowen spoke to address not legal issues, but risk. She said she has experience with political organizing on campus going back over 20 years. She has seen the faculty organize itself and knows how hard it is. She noted that as a full professor, it’s easy for her to be willing to take a risk and it’s easy for her to be forthright in speaking to the Board (as chair of the Committee on Conference with the Board), but it would take more to go to a lawsuit and it would be hard to ask junior faculty to take these risks. Prof. Curt Naser opined that the “shall” clause in proposed section F seems to strengthen the administration’s hand. Prof. Dee Lippman said that she is not afraid of risk. Senior faculty members owe it to younger faculty to role model our convictions and not to accept something mediocre. When she heard that we could continue using the same MOU that we currently have, she was less afraid of a lawsuit than of accepting this proposal. Prof. DeWitt said that he was a member of the FSC when he was untenured and was involved in getting the first MOU and the 95th percentile and the “until superseded” clause. These are incredibly strong terms that the faculty fought like hell to get. The attorneys are unequivocal that there’s no ambiguity; the contract letter is the controlling document. It trumps anything, including the MOU’s clause regarding the budget setting compensation. In 2009 we asked whether the “until superseded” phrase is ambiguous and the attorney said it was not. He then repeated the recent language from the FWC attorney stating that the language in the proposal is worse than what we currently have. Prof. Larry Miners said that he was grateful for outside opinions from attorneys, but the attorneys don’t live and work here and give their lives to the university as many of us do. He said he was a firm believer in faculty governance and that this FSC has worked harder for us than any other FSC. It’s not a great agreement, but that’s where the economy is, so he supported the motion. Prof. Marcie Patton said she wanted to speak as a political scientist about strategy. A strategy of brinksmanship was being proposed but she did not think we had good cards on our side to play this game. She had quickly reviewed the opinions distributed by Prof. Gordon and noted lots of hypotheticals in the text. Hypotheticals are the weakest form of reasoning. She respectfully disagreed with the claim that our position is guaranteed. The current MOU could continue, but should an impasse be reached, in other words, if we vote this down, then the Board can act. If we want to argue that they can’t, the only resolution is a lawsuit at a likely cost of $300,000 and several years. In the meantime, they’ll impose what they want. She argued against complacency in assuming that the existing MOU will continue. Prof. Bob Epstein noted we were not in a good position to evaluate legal opinions distributed only during the meeting. He was very hesitant to use these opinions as a basis for making important legal decisions, but he had looked through quickly to find what happens if we reject the MOU. The answer seems to be litigation, yet the FSC has worked all year to bring forward an MOU that won’t lead to litigation. And in what he had time to read of the attorneys’ opinions, there don’t seem to be rock solid assurances. The lawyers said that in order to invoke the financial limitations clause, the university would have to make a good faith argument for financial difficulties. Epstein opined that


15

it didn’t seem like it would be all that difficult to make something look like good faith. He spoke in favor of the motion. Prof. Irene Mulvey said that she was not an attorney but that she had been General Faculty Secretary for the last 9 years, had served on the FSC for 4 years immediately before that, chairing it for 2 of those years. Noting that distributing multi-page documents during the meeting that had not been shared in advance with the FSC was not the way to do things, she spoke in favor of approving the MOU. She focused on the consequences of the outcome of our vote. She said that she knew what would happen next week with our paychecks if we accept. We can move ahead toward a new MOU with a bumper crop of students and a budget surplus, beginning 95th percentile discussions right away and suggesting that retirement be restored to 10% as of January 1. But none of us knows with certainty what will happen if we don’t approve the MOU. Our contracts say a lot of things. Our contracts say they will be renewed on the same or better “terms and conditions”, but it’s not clear exactly what “terms and conditions” refer to. For example, the current MOU includes a 1.5% pay increase. Is that one of the “terms” that continues until this MOU is superseded by a new MOU? I don’t think anyone expects that. She explained that she knows what she’d like the documents to mean, but it doesn’t matter what she thinks or what our attorney thinks; paychecks will be issued by the administration and it’s unclear what they will do. If they don’t do what we think they should do, we’re left facing litigation we can’t afford and that we have no guarantee of winning. She added that she knows what Board of Trustees member President Privett thinks; he made it clear to the faculty who met with the Board in June that the budget passed by the Board determines compensation if there’s an impasse. She argued that it’s very risky not to accept the MOU. She is not risk averse- she has fought before and will fight again. But this isn’t the right time. It’s not clear that we have overwhelming support for a fight on this MOU, and without overwhelming support, we can’t do it well. She said that we do have overwhelming support for the 95th percentile and that’s a hill she’s willing to die on. She opined that if we vote this down, we won’t get anything better. Prof. Jocelyn Boryczka introduced herself as a political scientist and President of the Faculty Welfare Committee. She explained that the FSC is the one body elected by us and empowered to negotiate. They were the ones in the room all year long. They told us in April that they weren’t willing to bring forward an MOU and we supported them with a 185-0 vote. Then we engaged in a long hard campaign. She argued that no one is afraid of taking risks, we have taken risks. She was proud to stand with this faculty at the Rally for Unity in May, for the community Larry Miners talked about. We showed solidarity and collegiality. The FSC says this is the best deal we’re going to get right now, it’s what we fought for. Could it be better? Absolutely. Will we get a better one right now? Absolutely not. She said that we don’t know what will happen if we vote this down. It’s not certain what the power of the FSC would be going forward. But this MOU gives us a chance to live to fight another day, to educate, organize, mobilize, and struggle together collectively. Prof. Kevin Cassidy said that he was a political scientist and co-chair of the FWC action committee. He has been here since 1973 and has seen the development of the benefits and protections that we have and that other schools are envious of. He argued that our benefits are outstanding compared to other similar places and that happened through the FSC with the militant support of the FWC especially in the late 1980s. We have built a wonderful system, but not through lawyers. The one time we went to court, having been advised that we had a slam dunk


16

case, we lost. He said he was investing in us, not in the courts, and that that history goes out the window if we turn down this MOU. Prof. Phil Lane said that 3 years ago the FSC told us that the 95th percentile was guaranteed by the administration. He spoke against the proposal then but was told that he was out of step. Now the administration wants to take away the 95th percentile and his response is, “go to hell”. Prof. David McFadden said that he saw the issue as solidarity. He wasn’t looking forward to a divided faculty entering a period of litigation and of political uncertainty. We’ve had unprecedented unanimity, but now we seem to be headed to a divided vote and that doesn’t bode well. We elected this FSC, the most hard-working in our history, we elected the FWC leaders who are recommending standing behind the FSC and the FSC is recommending the MOU. He said we should stay together and vote for the MOU. Prof. William Vasquez said he was speaking against the motion though he thanked the FSC for their work. Considering the consequences if we vote in favor, he argued that 3 years ago we made concessions and now we’re in a worse position. We have an opportunity to have discussions with the administration about the 95th percentile, but the Board thinks faculty are too expensive. They will do everything they can to reduce that expense. He said that if we vote in favor, next year we’ll be asked to vote on whether to accept the 90th or 80th percentile. Prof. Ron Salafia said he had been here the longest of anyone. He did not want to talk about legal opinions, but about behavior. He argued that through our votes and our actions we got the Board to back off and let the administration negotiate and got the administration to back off and offer a reasonable compromise.

Motion[Salafia/He]: To call the question. Motion to call the question passed.

Ballot voting was conducted on the main motion with the help of Profs. Betsy Bowen, Paul Caster, and Laura McSweeney.

Main motion carried 145-70-2. Prof. Paul Lakeland said that there were clearly strong opinions on both sides of the issue, but he hoped he spoke for all in moving a vote of thanks to the FSC for their extraordinarily hard work. The faculty responded with a thunderous and sustained standing ovation for the FSC.

A motion to adjourn was uncontested at 5:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Prof. Susan Rakowitz Secretary of the General Faculty


17

Agenda item 4: Consideration of language requirement for DSB The Academic Council is the executive arm of the General Faculty, "empowered to consider, make decisions and make recommendations on any matter of academic concern that falls within the purview of the faculty, except for matters specifically reserved to the General Faculty. "(Handbook I.B.1) The Academic Council has this delegated authority from the General Faculty. Accordingly, "any decision of the Academic Council may be placed on the agenda of the next regular or called meeting of the General Faculty by a petition signed by not fewer than thirty members of the General Faculty" (Handbook I.B.4). At its 4/2/2012 meeting, the Academic Council passed the following motion: MOTION: to change the Modern and Classical Languages requirement for Charles F. Dolan School of Business undergraduate students from two semesters at the intermediate level to two semesters of the same language at any level. Over 40 faculty members agreed to the petition that this matter should be discussed by the General Faculty. Text from the petitioning faculty is below:

A broad based educational experience, embracing liberal arts, performing arts and natural and social science is the foundation on which Jesuit Education has been built. For over 50 years, Fairfield University had led students down a path focused on education the whole person with a call to human excellence. In addition to focusing on a chosen major – whatever that field may be – our CORE at Fairfield, when planned judiciously, provides a suite of experiences to supplement and bolster the chosen major. As the core is intended to be a universal experience for the undergraduates at Fairfield University, modification of core requirements should be made in a way to insure that a uniform experience be given to all students. The current proposal to modify the core joins two previous modifications for subsets of the Fairfield University student body. With these changes, now only students in the College of Arts and Sciences take what is considered the “core” at Fairfield.

At the 4/27/12 meeting of the General Faculty, the following motion was made and "tabled to the first General Faculty meeting in the Fall": MOTION: that the General Faculty reverse the decision of the Academic Council and return to a unified language core requirement for DSB and CAS. More information on this issue including: the proposal from DSB; excerpts of minutes from the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee; a report from a committee set up by the Academic Council to try to find resolution to the issue; excerpts of Academic Council minutes; and excerpts from General Faculty minutes can be found under agenda item 4 for 10/12/12 at the GFS website: http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/GFM/GFM2012_2013/GF12_13.html


18

For item 5, Proposed Handbook amendment from the Advancement Committee

Proposal and Supporting Materials:

Proposed text as approved by the Academic Council, 4/30/12 Page 18 Proposed text and rationale as presented by the Advancement Committee Page 19 Excerpts of minutes of University Advancement Committee, 3/5/12 Page 20 Excerpts of minutes of Academic Council, 4/30/12 Pages 20-21 Proposed Handbook Amendment: University Advancement Committee As approved by the Academic Council (New text in bold, deletions struck through.)

Membership

Five members elected from the faculty for three-year overlapping terms, with membership to be elected from the following electoral divisions: one member from the College of Arts and Sciences; one member from the School of Business; one member from neither the College of Arts & Sciences nor the School of Business, and two members at large without restriction as to curriculum area or school. The Vice President for University Advancement shall be an ex officio voting member. The Committee shall always include a minimum of three tenured faculty members.

Three members elected from the faculty for three-year overlapping terms. The Vice President for University Advancement shall be an ex officio voting member.

General Purpose

To inform and make recommendations to the faculty concerning the programs of the Division of University Advancement and to act as a liaison between the faculty and the Division in developing programs of public and community relations, with regard to alumni and alumnae relations, and annual and capital fund raising.

Specific Duties

To participate in the planning and program development activities of the Division of University Advancement as they pertain to community relations, fund raising and faculty/alumni and alumnae relations.


19

PROPOSED NEW TEXT FOR HANDBOOK: UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT COMMITTEE Submitted by University Advancement Committee (New text in bold, deletions struck through.)

Membership

Five members elected from the faculty for three-year overlapping terms, with membership to be elected from the following electoral divisions: one member from the College of Arts and Sciences; one member from the School of Business; and three members at large without restriction as to curriculum area or school, keeping in mind a preference for broad faculty participation among members of the Committee. The Vice President for University Advancement shall be an ex officio voting member. The Committee shall always include a minimum of three tenured faculty members.

Three members elected from the faculty for three-year overlapping terms. The Vice President for University Advancement shall be an ex officio voting member.

General Purpose

To inform and make recommendations to the faculty concerning the programs of the Division of University Advancement and to act as a liaison between the faculty and the Division in developing programs of public and community relations, with regard to alumni and alumnae relations, and annual and capital fund raising.

Specific Duties

To participate in the planning and program development activities of the Division of University Advancement as they pertain to community relations, fund raising and faculty/alumni and alumnae relations.

Reasons for Proposed Changes: Membership: The new text reflects concerns on the Committee, discussed during the past 2.5 years, regarding the value of expanding the Committee and ensuring that committee membership: (a) includes a representative from DSB; (b) seeks to have members from different schools and departments; and (c) includes members with sufficient experience at the University. At the same time, we sought to keep the paragraph as simple as possible and avoid mandating that additional schools be represented when they are sometimes already overburdened with committee assignments. General Purpose and Specific Duties: The original purpose and duties reflect when Public Relations and Marketing and Communications were still part of Advancement, not their own separate Division. Since the Committee no longer meets with or hears reports concerning public and community relations, the new text is more accurate.


20

University Advancement Committee Excerpt of Meeting Minutes: 5 March 2012

Present: David Downie (chair); Stephanie Frost (ex officio); David Gudelunas; Katherine Schwab

Proposed new text for Handbook, regarding University Handbook Committee a. DD noted that the new language (attached) to be submitted to the Academic

Council, and previously circulated to the committee and revised via email, had also been drafted in consultation with former Advancement committee members.

b. A discussion followed focusing on why representation from the Schools of Engineering and Nursing were not specifically mandated. DD noted the small number of faculty members in those schools posed potential logistical problems for prescribing their participation.

c. KS suggested changing phrasing that referred to “diverse faculty representation” to “broad faculty representation.” This phrasing was deemed more favorable and precise.

d. Conversation followed concerning the importance of seeking representation from the hard sciences and nursing as future fundraising efforts could likely include targeted support for these areas.

e. Whether or not the new language would be overly prescriptive was raised by DG and this topic was discussed in relation to the role of the current committee in encouraging particularly well-qualified colleagues to seek election on the committee in the future.

f. A motion to approve the new handbook language was made by DG, seconded by KS and approved unanimously.

Excerpts from Minutes of April 30, 2012 Academic Council Meeting

Professor Downie explained that the Advancement Committee for two to three years has been discussing possible changes in its membership. This proposal comes from a need to get more members, especially in the next several years of the capital campaign. They want to have a broader representation, more expertise, including a representative from the DSB, and to insure that we have members from different schools and departments. Advancement no longer looks at community affairs; with the reorganization that part is factually inaccurate.

Professor Bayne asked whether the committee considered rather than the sentence about “no restrictions” that there should be a least 1 member from specifically designated schools.

Professor Downie stated that they want DSB, CAS, and sometimes Nursing but that the committee is agnostic about the language. He noted that there is not a lot of consistency in the language of membership of committees. He doesn’t care about the language as long as it results in the representation they seek.

Professor Nantz observed that there is a new committee on arts, culture, and community engagement.

SVPAA Fitzgerald noted that it is connected to the Public Lectures Committee.

Professor Nantz responded “never mind.”


21

Professor Sapp, as former chair, indicated that in discussions over several years, maybe greater than three years, some of this language was an effort to keep it simple.

Professor Downie continued in his presentation, highlighting that in the second-to-last line in the bold section, the Vice President for University Advancement as ex officio is automatically a non-voting member, so this language is in keeping with Stephanie Frost’s lack of a vote. The committee is agnostic on this point and that sentence could be eliminated. There are not many votes.

Dean Crabtree asked how many meetings there were.

Professor Downie responded that they meet roughly twice a year.

Dean Crabtree noted that, generally speaking, growing this committee is a fantastic set of events, increasing faculty service, but she would like to see the committee commit to a certain number of meetings, particularly as the campaign heats up.

MOTION [Sapp/Tromley]: To adopt the new language in bold on page 32 of the 4/30/12 packet to amend the Faculty Handbook.

Professor Sapp was in favor.

Professor Tromley supported the motion.

Professor Walker questioned, are we sure these schools will be represented.

Professor Mulvey responded no, but we do this all the time.

MOTION TO AMEND [Rakowitz/Keenan]: By deleting the phrase “keeping in mind a preference for broad faculty participation among members of the Committee” so it ends with “school.”

Professor Rakowitz explained that this would be the appropriate Handbook language.

MOTION TO AMEND PASSED unanimously.

Professor Bayne wanted to offer another motion to amend because he wanted to further define the representation. Professor Mulvey stated the motion would need to be more specific.

MOTION TO AMEND [Bayne/Walker]: That the representatives be: one member from the College of Arts and Sciences; one member from the School of Business; one member from neither the College of Arts and Sciences nor the School of Business; and two members at large without restriction as to curriculum area or school.

Professor Bayne spoke in favor of the motion to amend because it is designed to capture with more precision the intention of the portion Professor Rakowitz deleted with her amendment.

Professor Sapp expressed frustration with the new restriction on membership because it has been predominantly School of Business representation.

MOTION TO AMEND PASSED: 11 in favor, 3 opposed, 1 abstention.

MAIN MOTION as amended PASSED: 13 in favor, 2 opposed, 0 abstentions.


22

For Agenda item 6, Discussion of a Vote of No Confidence in President von Arx

Excerpts from the Minutes of the May 31, 2012 General Faculty Meeting

Prof. Bob Epstein asked about the President’s interactions with the FSC this year. Following the answer that the President had met with the FSC once (with VP Mark Reed and the consultant) and had a meeting with members of the FSC and Professors Mulvey and Rakowitz from the AC Executive Committee to discuss his perspective on the 95th percentile, he made the following motion.

MOTION. [Epstein/Bucki] that a discussion of a vote of no confidence in President von Arx be placed on the agenda for the first General Faculty meeting in September.

Prof. Joy Gordon spoke in favor of the motion. She said it is not just about compensation, but a failure of leadership. She noted the declining yield rate, the amount spent on Athletics, the bloated administration, the funding going into administration and not academics. The issues regarding compensation are only one manifestation of this. The question is not just how did we get into this crisis, but to what degree can we say this “crisis” is a useful crisis for a Board that for a long time has held the faculty in contempt. She supports the motion because we must question the competence and integrity of the President, his senior management, and some members of the Board of Trustees. Prof. Ron Salafia spoke in favor of the motion, saying it is a gentle but forceful message about the degree of dissatisfaction on the part of the faculty. He encouraged a strong show of support for the motion, noting that it calls for a discussion of a vote of no confidence, not a vote of no confidence in September. Prof. Cecelia Bucki spoke in favor of the motion. She expressed concern about a worrisome trend to deflate the integrity of the University and its academic standing. She wants our University to be always reaching for the highest levels and not to diminish our faculty by offering bad compensation terms. Prof. Yohuru Williams spoke in favor of the motion. He said he came from an institution where similar things were taking place and the fundamental mistake that the faculty made was not initiating a vote of no confidence in the leadership. He said it’s about accountability. We may not hold the President completely responsible, but we must hold him accountable. Prof. Rick DeWitt spoke in favor of the motion, saying it was high time to initiate this kind of an action. We have the summer to discuss matters and then take up the discussion formally at a meeting in the fall.

MOTION PASSED 158 in favor, 0 opposed, 9 abstaining (158-0-9)

Documents

General Faculty Meeting Friday October 12, 2012 Gonzaga … › gfs › GFM › GFM2012_2013 › gfmpacket... · 2012-10-03 · General Faculty Meeting Page 1 Octboer 12, 2012 General