University of Notre DameThe Faculty Senate

THE JOURNALSeptember 13, 1990

Prof. Paul Conway, chair, called the first meeting of the academic year 1990-91 toorder at 7:30 p.m. in Room 202 of the Center for Continuing Education, and asked Prof.F. Ellen Weaver, vice chair to offer the prayer. After introductions of the new andreturning senators, he passed out the Faculty Senate roster for correction beforeprinting. The Journals for April 10 and May 1 were circulated for comment andcorrection. Prof. Leo Despres moved and Weaver seconded that both be accepted asamended and the senate concurred.

Report from the Chair

Conway reported first on the status of several 1989-90 resolutions:

1. Cashability and transferability of TIAAlCREF is now in thehands of a sub-subcommittee Budget Priorities Committee.

2. On parental leave, "the primary care-giver policy," asubcommittee of the Academic Council is now working ontwo alternative versions and will take up the issue at itsfirst meeting. The senate's Administration Committee willmonitor progre.$$.

3. The senate resolution on the openness of the tenure processhas been sent to Provost Timothy O'Meara for inclusion onthe agenda of the Academic Council's first meeting.

4. The resolution urging lectures, symposia, etc., during TheYear of Women on the issue of the ordination of women hasalso been sent to the Provost, who will forward it to otherinterested agencies.

5. Reverend E. William Beauchamp, C.S.C., chair of the FacultyBoard in Control of Athletics, will meet with the senate'sStudent Affairs subcommittee which has been working onthe question of academics vs. athletics.

On other matters, the Board of Trustees will meet on campus in early October and thesenate will be well represented in the meeting of the Academic and Faculty AffairsCommittee, with at least five senate members present for that session. The President,Edward A. Malloy, C.S.C., will give his annual faculty address on October 3, and followingcustom will be present at the senate's meeting that evening to answer questions anddiscuss issues with the members. Future meetings of the senate will hear the Directorof Human Resources, Roger Mullins (November), the Director of Libraries, RobertMiller (December) and Provost O'Meara (January).

The chair then reported on the senate Executive Committee's meeting on June 5 with thePresident and the Provost. The topic was the role of the faculty in governance, based onthe senate's extensive work on this subject in the 1989-90 academic year and itsrecommendation of a study group of some kind for the issue. In summary, despite this

moderate recommendation and the united stance of both the 1989-90 and 1990-91Executive Committees present, the Provost and the President would agree only to havethe topic brought before the Academic Council; neither saw any mandate from the facultyor the senate survey for any further move. Conway and the Executive Committeesbelieved that going to the Council would achieve nothing, and that, based on what theProvost said, we should proceed with the formation· of a committee independent of thesenate, the council and the administration.

Others present at that meeting supported Conway's essential points. Weaver said bothMalloy and O'Meara were clear in not accepting any compromise position. Prof. MarioBorelli reminded the senate that whatever is done on the governance issue has to comefrom the senate and we cannot expect any support from the administration.

Others present at that meeting supported Conway's essential points. Weaver said bothMalloy and O'Meara were clear in not accepting any compromise position. Borellireminded the senate that whatever is done on the governance issue has to come from thesenate and we cannot expect any support from the administration. Prof. RonaldWasowski, C.S.C. asked who suggested in the meeting that the senate take the initiative informing a committee to study governance? Conway replied that the idea was initiallycontained in the Provost's response to the senate, dated March 23, 1990, in which hepushed for the Academic Council to take up the issue, but said failing that, the senateshould feel to do it alone. Prof. William Tageson, co-secretary, reported his impressionthat the President as well as the Provost feared any such committee would necessarilyengender some very radical suggestions about the foundations of the University; it was afoundational issue to them and they appeared fearful of any independent committeeauthorized to look at it. Dr. Sandra Harmatiuk sensed that they did not understand theidea that, even if no problems existed objectively, the faculty perceived some; thoseperceptions must be dealt with. A summary of the preceding year's effort was given byProf. John Yoder to give some background to what was a very moderate suggestion for acommittee to study the subject, somewhat encouraged by public statements frommembers of the administration that now might be the time to take up the issue. Prof.Morton Fuchs asked how such a committee's findings might be passed on theadministration. Conway responded that the committee will report to the senate whichwill exercise its right of agenda for the Academic Council; the senate would discuss it,perhaps endorse, but not "nitpick" it (in Borelli's terms).

Standing Committee Reports

1 . Academic Affairs

Yoder, chair brought up the question of library/curriculumcorrelation which has to be dealt with after last year's study.Also the committee will have to watch the implementation ofseveral items endorsed last year, such as the openness of thetenure process. Despres mentioned that the Faculty Committee onUniversity Libraries might be one way to improve correlation withcurriculum changes, and should be contacted.

2

2. Administration

Prof. Panos Antsaklis reported for the chair, Prof. FrankConnolly who was excused, that the committee will meet afterthe meeting.

3. Benefits

Prof. Frank Bonello, chair, reviewed a number of senateresolutions, on parental leave and on changes in TIAAlCREF;both proposals remain in the committee processes of theBudget Priorities Committee. On hospitalization issuesfor 1991, we can expect increases from Blue Cross/BlueShield. The committee's compensation report is nearingcompletion. The committee for single faculty to meet. Fuchsasked about a dental plan being instituted; Bonello did notthink it was a possibility.

4. Student Affairs

Chair, Sandra Harmatiuk, said the issue of academics vs.athletics would remain on its agenda, and is pleased thatFr. Beauchamp has agreed to meet with them.

OLD BUSINESS

The secretary, Peter Lombardo, reported on the faculty alcohol assistance program. TheUniversity must have a written and comprehensive policy to help faculty with substanceabuse problems, and the senate has been asked by the President to makerecommendations. Several people from counselling and human resources havevolunteered to serve on the committee and several senators are needed to continue thework. Suggestions for procedures and help are encouraged. Prof. Robert Hayes providedhistorical background and asked if the current committee saw as its mandate torecommend something to the senate, and then to the administration. Lombardo respondedyes.

NEW BUSINESS

The Executive Committee proposed the formation of a University Committee onGovernance. Yodeor spoke for the committee to explain its purpose. Using the summarydated September 6, 1990, he reminded the senate of its past year's work and the attitudeof the administration as expresse"8 in'our June 5 meeting, and thought that the chances ofsuch a committee's work being accepted in toto by the Academic Council were not good.Perhaps we should proceed by incremental steps, almost piece by piece, with only verymodest changes; these may stand a better chance of success than a large package. But theproposed committee would have to decide which way to proceed. Prof. JosephBlenkinsopp thought one good result, one goal of the committee, should be informational,to raise the level of awareness of the faculty about current procedures here, what ourpeer institutions do, what various outside groups like AAUP and North CentralAccreditation have said, etc.; our recommendations then would have more weight with thefaculty if everyone knows and appreciates the background.

3

Despres was ambivalent about the senate forming such a committee. Who would serve onit once everyone knows of the administration's "stonewalling?" Should not the senate,while the committee is working, at the same time go back to the original mandate andstudy unionization too? Conway said the senate had last spring solicited volunteers forsuch a committee and had gotten a large number who wanted to work on such anindependent committee and virtually all were non-Senators. Borelli supportedDespres's two-track idea.

Borelli then moved to direct the Executive Committee to:

a announce its intention to create a committee to study facultygovernance, either by the newspaper or letter to all faculty;

b. solicit volunteers to serve on it;

c. send a detailed cover letter to the faculty containing themandate of the committee and its method of operation.

d. these points are contained in the September 6 statement ofthe Executive Committee and it should be endorsed.

Prof. Peter Moody asked that the motion include some historical summary of the issuethat would be given to all faculty, and Borelli agreed. Despres seconded the motion byBorelli. Tageson called the question. There being an objection, the discussion proceeded.

Wasowski suggested a number of friendly amendments to the September 6 statement. Indiscussion the senate modified a couple of these, and Borelli accepted them. Profs.Margaret Porter, Fuchs and Moody discussed these changes and urged the acceptance ofthe motion. The senate proceeded to vote and passed the motion unanimously. It isprinted as Appendix A of this journal.

Despres then moved, and Borelli seconded, to direct the Executive Committee to examinethe question of faculty unionization. In the discussion which followed, Bonello pointedout that the faculty would never support such a move. Besides, this is not the time to dosuch a thing; see what the committee does, how its report is received, and then ifnecessary look into unionization. Despres thought Bonello was correct on his first point,but incorrect on his second: the unionization move would only enhance the work of thegovernance committee; it was purely informational. Borelli, who is personally againstunionization, thought an informational or theoretical study of unionization would beappropriate; the Executive Committee had been mandated to do this, but so far had nottackled the issue. Conway as chair wondered about the propriety of discussing and votingon such an important issue at so late an hour after so long a meeting. He asked for amotion to table, which Weaver so moved with Blenkinsopp as second. The senateconcurred.

The senate adjourned at 9:15 to its various committee meetings.

Respectfully submitted:

Peter J. LombardoSecretary

4

Present:

AntsaklisBartlettBlenkinsoppBonelloBorelliChangConwayCostiganDespresFuchsHarmatiuk

Absent

BandyopadhyayBentleyBunkerEschFalkenburgHerroJohnson,C.L.Johnson, P.

Excused

ConnollyPrattPilkintonSheehan

HayesHemphillJerez-FarranJordanLeightonLombardoMacKenzieMoodyNicholsO'ConnorPorter

LapsleyMartinMcCarthyMillerParnellPillayPowerScully

FallonDelaneyBenderJ. Powers

SporlederSterlingTagesonVecchioWasowskiWeaverYoderLabaree, Christine(student government representative)

5

TQ1990

FROM:

All Members of the Faculty Senate

Executive Committee

APPENDIX A

September 6,

6

SUBJECT: University Committee on Governance (UCOG)

On June 5, 1990, the Executive Committee met with President Malloy and ProvostO'Meara to discuss what actions should be taken in response to the results of the FacultySenate's survey on the role of the faculty in university governance. I think it is fair tostate that Fr. Malloy did not see any mandate for any action such as the formation of aTask Force or a UCOG as the result of the survey. In essence, he would expect any surveyasking the faculty if they felt they should have a greater role in university governance toturn out the way it did regardless of the size of the faculty responding.

If We wished to further pursue the matter of a UCOG, one suggestion was for the FacultySenate to take the initiative in forming a UCOG and to ultimately bring a report fromsuch a committee to the Academic Council. The Executive Committee feels that this wasthe only feasible action emerging from our June 5 meeting. Accordingly, the ExecutiveCommittee has decided to ask the Faculty Senate to endorse a plan of action re a UCOGwhich it feels was mandated by the Faculty Senate survey. In reaching this decision, theExecutive Committee was also strongly influenced by the response it received from thefaculty when we asked for faculty members to volunteer to stand for election to apotential UCOG or to suggest names of fellow faculty members who would be goodcandidates for the committee.

Enclosed is a copy of the Executive Committee's proposal for establishing a UCOG. TheSenate would merely serve as a Nominating Committee for the selection and election ofthe members of the UCOG. The committee would be completely independent of the Senate.It would report its findings and recommendations to the Senate so the Senate could use its"right of agenda" to bring the report to the Academic Council. If it wished, the Senatecould comment on the report and attach its comments/suggestions as an addenda to thecommittee's report. We should also add that the Senate's role in the formation of a UCOGwould not be unique. Traditionally, the Senate acts in a similar capacity in conducting anumber of elections including the selection and election of the faculty representatives tothe Academic and Faculty Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees.

We want to be able to take the necessary actions for establishing this committee as soonas possible after the first Senate meeting which is September 13, so we are sending thisproposal to you now for your comments. Please take the time to review the ExecutiveCommittee's proposal and forward any suggestions/comments to the Faculty Senate Officein Decio. If you need any clarification of the proposal please contact any member of theExecutive Committee.

APPENDIX A(cant.)

Faculty Committeeon

University Governance

In response to a faculty survey conducted during the fall of 1989 by the Faculty Senate'sAd Hoc Committee on University Governance, the Faculty Senate will establish as aspecial committee the University Committee on Governance (UCOG). UCOG will consistof 18 faculty members, elected by the faculty in a special election conducted by theFaculty Senate. To obtain proportional representation for all parts of the facultycommunity, the 18 faculty members of UCOG shall include 7 members from the Collegeof Arts and Letters, 3 from the College of Science, 2 from the College of Engineering, 2from the College of Business Administration, 1 from the Law School, 1 from theLibrary, and 2 from the Special Professional Faculty. The election will be held early inthe fall semester of the 1990-91 academic year. The ballot will consist of facultymembers, including faculty who serve in administrative capacities, who have expressedan interest in examining the issue of university governance and who have agreed to serveon UCOG. At its first meeting UCOG will select its own chair and create subcommittees asit deems appropriate. Expenses incurred by UCOG will be underwritten by the FacultySenate.

The charge to UCOG is to examine the current structure of university governance and tomake recommendations for change that will enhance the governance of the Universitythrough increased faculty participation. In its efforts UCOG will seek to address thedeficiencies in university governance identified in the 1974 and 1984 North CentralAccreditation Visitation Review Reports on the university; to examine theinconsistencies between current university governance and the AAUP statement onuniversity governance; to consider governance as practiced at peer institutions withinthe context of the special character of the university; and to address the concerns raisedby the faculty survey conducted during the fall of 1989 by the Faculty Senate's Ad HocCommittee. Although UCOG will be free to set its own agenda, the following items aresuggested for evaluation: (i) the composition and roles of the Academic Council, theGraduate Council, and the College Councils; (ii) mechanisms for greater facultyinvolvement in such matters as academic concerns, benefits, salary, classroomfacilities, athletics, grievance procedures and faculty discipline; and (iii) participationof elected faculty representatives at different stages in tenure and promotion decisions.While no time limit is imposed for the completion of UCOG's activities, it is hoped that itwill complete its efforts by the end of the 1990-91 academic year.

Having completed its examination, UCOG will submit a written report to the FacultySenate, which will then, exercising its right of agenda, forward the report to theAcademic Council for consideration.

7

The Faculty SenateTHE JOURNAL

November 6, 1990

Prof. Paul Conway, chair, called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. in Room 202 of theCenter for Continuing Education. After an opening prayer, Prof. Harvey Bender,seconded by Prof. Mario Borelli, moved to accept the Journal of September 13, 1990;any corrections or changes may be reported to the secretary. In the chair's reportConway advised the senate that at his request its resolution to open the process ofreappointment, tenure and promotion had been tabled at the October meeting of theAcademic Council. This was done to permit the senate to determine if its vote on the issuewas supported by faculty serving on departmental CAP's and department chairpersons.In order to support this resolution, Dr. Ellen Weaver proposed that a letter be composedand sent as a poll to all departmental chairs in the University to give them the historyand background on the issue and to ask them to poll their CAP/ATP members on thequestion. In the discussion which followed Prof. Leo Despres wondered if this was in linewith earlier senate sentiment which seemed to favor a more widely based poll (of thewhole faculty), while Prof. Morton Fuchs thought that a faculty survey was also inorder; Prof. Frank Bonello believed that the current members of the CAPs would be arepresentative enough survey. Prof. Peter Moody agreed with Fuchs and Despres,suggesting an additional question to see if the respondent was or is a member of a CAP.The sense of the senate seemed to direct Weaver to do a full faculty survey, to which shereadily consented.

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

* Academic Affairs - Prof. John Yoder reported -that the ballot on governance wasabout ready for faculty responses.

* Administration - Prof. Frank Connolly reported that his committee believed theparking situation should be studied once again, especially the broad issue of the wayfaculty can have an impact on decisions made by the Physical Plant Department.

* Benefits - Bonello gave a report on his work as a member of a working group of theBudget Priorities Committee, especially in regard to University benefits. Another issuebrought before his committee was the lack of social life for single men and women in theUniversity community; the committee thinking was leaning toward the formation of an adhoc committee to do something about the situation.

* Student Affairs - Prof. Sandra Harmatiuk reported that the committee had had asatisfactory meeting with Rev. E. William Beauchamp, C.S.C., Executive Vice Presidentand Chair of the Faculty Board in Control of Athletics (FBCA), on a question raised in thesenate recently about that board's power and effectiveness. Together they discussedconcerns about class attendance, time commitments for student-athletes, faculty "perks"and the name of the board.

The secretary, Peter Lombardo, reported on the ad hoc faculty alcohol awarenessprogram committee. Contact has been made with a medical facility and discussion hasmoved toward inviting their representative to meet with the committee to talk aboutsupport services offered, confidentiality issues and questions about the impact of thisproposed program on tenure.

Next, the chair introduced the senate's guest for the meeting, Roger Mullins, Director ofHuman Resources, for his annual conversation with the senate. The senate technicallystood in recess for this portion of its meeting. In his preliminary remarks on BlueCross/Blue Shield (BC/BS), Mullins reported that claims were 84°.10 of premiums thisyear; other factors added 7 or 8%. It appears that for calendar 1991 there will be a12% increase. Prof. James McCarthy asked if this 120/0 would apply to retirees, towhich Mullins replied yes. The Treasurer, Panos Antsaklis, along with Borelli,wondered if premiums ever would go down or hold steady; Borelli added that Notre as thearea's largest employer should have some leverage on this, while Bonello raised theethical issue: if Congress is shifting costs through Medicare cuts, where do they go if notto Blue Cross and the individual? Who is responsible for these skyrocketing costs? Inresponse Mullins said, including trending factors, the raise should actually be 22°.10, andwith inflation plus the cost-shifting, some companies will be hit with a 30% increase.Health costs will continue to increase every year, and it seems the federal governmentwill pay less every year. University representatives meet with area hospitaladministrators several times a year to talk about various ideas:

* direct contracting on a preferred-provider basis-but do we want togive up freedom of choice on physicians and hospitals?* possible deals among a group of employers (a coalition)* trust arrangements on a favorable long term basis* self-insurance for Notre Dame-and this might be consideredas a serious possibility.

Fuchs wondered why medical costs so far exceeded the inflation rate. Mullins said that inaddition to the inflation rate hospitals face big costs for medical technologies that areconstantly being developed; there is also a duplication of services among area providers.In an untraditional view, he thought the person who receives some particular medicalservice should know that he/she is not paying the whole cost of it.

Prof. Willis Bartlett pointed out a particular problem with the disclaimer notice onsome pre-authorization forms that the company may not pay certain costs; Mullins saidhis office was looking into this, and that no claim had ever been rejected because of this.Prof. Yu-Chi Chang brought up a personal instance of what he thought was a discrepancybetween costs for similar procedures at different hospitals; are South Bend hospitalshigher than facilities adjacent to us? Mullins said all of Indiana has significantly lowercosts than most other regions. Despres, again with a personal instance, disputed that.Mullins maintained that Indiana was comparatively lower, but our comparisons arewithin the South Bend area only. Bonello, Borelli and Connolly all thought medical costswere too high, and that people were angry; wasn't there something we can do? Mullinssaid we constantly monitor rates and charges, point out errors, negotiate per capitarates, and try to interest area employers in joining forces. There seems little movementto join in a coalition, although this may be changing at this time. McCarthy pointed outsome difficulties retirees face with Medicare, often complicated by the failure of somedoctors to use the system for the benefit of retirees and their families who are entitled tocertain benefits.

Prof. David O'Connor saw a structural problem with the American health care system,but that a coalition such as has been proposed for area firms might improve it. Mullinstoo thought it was a legitimate attempt at cost containment, but at the price of limitingfreedom of choice. Prof. Pamela Falkenburg believed that the answer depended on thequality of the care given. Conway wondered why medical costs do not have to be properlyjustified, as are costs in any other industry. Mullins responded that perhaps the recentBC/BS Accordia group-only for colleges and universities-is a way to contain costs.

Perhaps a coalition is the answer. Perhaps self-insurance will give us more clout; aLaPorte instance seems to indicate that great savings can be made.

Despres asked about HMOs as a way to contain costs. For Mullins, they are similar toBC/BS: if claims continue to equal premiums, no one is going to lower rates. Connollyreturned to the coalition idea and thought it could be effective in keeping costs down.Mullins agreed that a coalition of universities could reduce reserves and could involvecost-shifting and self-insurance. The local area's employers' coalition did not work outten years ago, but may be tried again. Despres and Borelli asked how much choice therewould be in some "preferred-provider" plan. Mullins said it was complete: the chosenprovider would be the sole one. Prof. Donald Sporleder along with Falkenburg returnedto the issue of HMOs. Mullins was not enthusiastic about their outlook: some are goingout of business, physicians are dropping out, etc. Fuchs asked if the two currentlyoffered by the University were stable, and Mullins responded positively.

Prof. Gregory Sterling turned to the question of dental care: would there be a chance forthis to be included in health benefits? Mullins responded affirmatively, but only as anoption without University contribution. Sterling thought the Flexplan might be a placefor its inclusion, and Mullins will check on this. On another issue, Sterling asked whatthe typical salaries wee for health care professionals. Mullins said RNs are paid about$15 per hour, but it is a supply-and-demand issue. Other professionals especiallyphysicians are much more lucratively reimbursed, often depending on the specialty.Bonello asked if Human Resources would be providing an annual report on health benefitsto individuals, and Mullins said it would if funds are available.

There being no further questions, Conway thanked Mullins for his time and wished himwell. The senate responded with a round of applause. Resuming its business, the chaircalled for New Business. Kurt Mills introduced himself as the representative of theGraduate Student Union to the senate. He asked what the senate positions were on: daycare, the Goerner report on teaching assistants, and the University's affirmative actionpolicy. Conway said the senate had discussed each one and had statements; if Mills wouldwrite to the chair, he would refer his request to the appropriate committee forresponses, and welcomed Mills to the senate. Mills was invited to serve on whichevercommittee he desired.

A motion to adjourn was made and seconded, and the senate did so at 9:05 p.m.

In attendance:

AntsaklisBartlettBenderBentleyBonelloBorelliChangConnollyConwayDespresEschFalkenburgFuchs

HarmatiukHemphillJerez-FarranJohnson,C.L.LombardoMartinMcCarthyMillsMoodyNicholsO'ConnorParnellPillay

PorterPowerPowersPrattScullySporlederSterlingTagesonWasowskiWeaverYoder

Absent:BandyopadhyayBunkerCostiganDelaney

Excused:BlenkinsoppHayesJordan

Respectfully submitted,

William TagesonPeter LombardoCo-Chairs

FallonHerroJohnson, P.Lapsley

PilkintonVecchio

LeightonMacKenzieMillerSheehanLabaree

The Faculty SenateTHE JOURNAL

December 11, 1990

Prof. Paul Conway, chair, called the Faculty Senate meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. inRoom 202 of the Center for Continuing Education, and asked co-secretary WilliamTageson to offer a prayer. The Journal of November 6, 1990 will be circulated tosenators by campus mail; senators should call the secretary with corrections andchanges. The chair reported that faculty should have already received the senate surveyon the question of notification of tenure decisions; he urged all senators to ask theircolleagues to return it promptly. Prof. Charles Parnell said he had not received his, andConway pointed out that only active faculty would be participating in this one.

Standing Committee Reports

* Academic Affairs - Prof. Joseph Blenkinsopp reported for chair John Yoder. Thecommittee is discussing and will propose a resolution in January on the UniversityLibraries which may include:

-expansion of reference services-relocation of institutes/offices now located on the upper floors

of Hesburgh Library to provide more usable "library" space-urging the University Administration to increase library

budgets for certain specific departments (Le., classics)-review of the faculty borrowing and recall policies

The committee would like to review the policy on correlation between library resourcesand new curricular programs.

* Administration - chair Frank Connolly stated that the committee would review thepolicy on sexual harassment, and a resolution will be forthcoming soon. TheAdministration, according to both Connolly and Conway, has asked the senate to do thisand present a recom·mendation to the Academic Council which upon passage would beincluded in the Academic Manual. There would presumably be penalties in any suchpolicy, perhaps including dismissal. Prof. Mario Borelli reported that there was astudent committee working on such a statement for inclusion in the student manual duLac.

* Benefits - chair Prof.Frank Bonello reported that the compensation statementwould be ready by February, once some supporting documentation is received.

* Student Affairs - co-chair Prof. Clark Power reported on these items:

-athletics and academics is still an issue of concern, andthe Faculty Board in Control of Athletics (FBCA) is alsolooking at this topic. Is there a conflict of interest inmembers of the FBCA going to bowl games? How seriousis the confidentiality requirement? is the appointmentof Prof. Halischak to the FBCA in keeping with the spiritof "faculty appointment" in view of her role as athleticsacademic advisor?

-co-chair Dr. Sandra Harmatiuk reported on the mostrecent meeting of the Campus Life Council (to which thesenate has two appointments). It has studied the questionof date/acquaintance rape. Is the administrationinsensitive to this important issue? CLC has maderecommendations on this to the Vice President forStudent Affairs. Currently no policy exists on thisspecific subject. If du Lac is to be revised soon, thistopic ought to be addressed.

-Power introduced Kurt Mills who is the Graduate StudentUnion representative on the senate. He will speak under"New Business."

Since the library is the heart of any university, the senate invited the Director ofUniversity Libraries to address the body at this meeting, to answer questions and hearconcerns. The chair welcomed and introduced Robert C. Miller, who then spoke. Thesenate technically stood in recess during his presentation.

The library, according to Miller, is critical to the faculty's success as teachers andscholars. Basically the library is about delivery of services to its users qUickly andeffectively, "within available resources." Other complications: a wide range of needsand content, various formats, and different users. So the library does not always succeedas well as it wants to, but the response has to be to the users and their needs. NotreDame's collections are good, not great. On the undergraduate level we are generallyexcellent with notable collections in theology, medieval studies, and sports research; notall the others are in this category. We are weak in current journal subscriptions (butothers are too because of a proliferation of titles and exploding costs); at least wecontinue to add journals. Services are good, with an excellent and dedicated butundersized staff. The budget is big, over $6.5 million, but it is not big enough, with noroom for flexibility, contingencies or experimentation in services for faculty, staff andstudents. We are reasonable but far from the "cutting edge" in technological services.

However, we have made progress: in the 1981/82 rankings of collections size ascompiled by the Association of Research Libraries we were #67, and in 1988/89 wewere #62; in 1981/82 volumes added we were #89, and in 1988/89 #38; and in theoverall index of the ARL we were #96 in 1981/82, and #72 in 1988/89 (out of 106).Our ability to serve is better today than it was ten years ago. Still, there is a long way togo.

A current library concourse exhibit focuses on the library endowment as "the criticaldifference." The phrase is apt in describing what endowment funds mean to theUniversity Libraries. Such funding must double within five years to continue to make adifference. Outside grants for collection development are very important (both fromprivate and public sources). Other services are improving thanks to this funding:better copiers and faster cataloguing are examples. Automation is generally improvingservices. CD-ROMs and self-operated reader/printers are coming soon. But problemsremain.

Some long-range ideas:

-UNLOC - not just a library catalog, but the key to campusinformation resources generally. All video materialsheld by Educational Media, all tapes in the ComputingCenter and Social Science Research Training Laboratory

are catalogued there too, and more will be included,perhaps even courseware in the PC clusters.

-MDAS - an enhancement of NOTIS software to loadperiodical indices for speedier searching will beavailable by summer.

-SULON - state universities library automated network-alinking of private and public institution's catalogsthrough NOTIS.

-a faster and more efficient campus delivery systemamong the branches.

-in collections, the library wants to be sure to coverevery discipline area more than sufficiently at theundergraduate level, expand the coverage of collections ofnational importance, and enhance electronic mediainformation (like the 1990 census); for the graduatelevel, more carrels are needed, space for group work,perhaps even a graduate study center; hours should beextended and services improved especially in the branchlibraries, some of which are "grossly inadequate in size,environmental conditions and facilities"; HesburghLibrary needs a major renovation; and the library needsto expand its preservation programs.

These are ambitious goals; with inflation, dollar devaluation and tight times, achievingthem will be difficult. The existing efforts as well as the long-range goals are hurt bythese factors. So outside funding is crucial. The library is working hard to understandthe best way to deal with electronic media, in conjunction with other campus agencies,and this is expensive. Finally the staff must be expanded.

Problem areas:

-serials - not many new subscriptions this year, and hardchoices continue to face us.

-faculty renewal and the problems of automation-the circulation system has problems which have to be

solved, and patience will be required.-confidentiality - the code of ethics of the library

profession says not to give out names of borrowers; theFaculty Library Committee has endorsed this as NotreDame policy. But complaints have been lodged. Theremay be a way around this by asking each borrower ifhe/she wishes to have name released. The library istrying to deal with both confidentiality and practicality.

-the recall procedures need "teeth."

What help can the faculty be to the library? Tell the library what is wrong (and what isright on occasion), and what the students need. Be patient but persistent while problemsare addressed. Get the library involved in evaluations, curriculum planning and coursedevelopment. Respond to surveys and open forums on library problems and needs.Perhaps faculty members would like to join the Friends of the Library to show care andsupport for the library's efforts (only about 1 or 20/0 of faculty are members). Thesenate could be one way for faculty input about the library to be given and structured forthe library. Miller closed his presentation and asked for questions and comments.

Prof. Richard Sheehan asked about satellite libraries, especially for the proposedBusiness College building. Miller responded that Dean Keane would like a library there,and Miller himself would like a "presence" or information center. He did not believecurriculum, space and student needs warranted a separate "library." The College wouldhave to determine finally the service needed and the funds available to carry them out.Prof. Robert Vecchio followed up and asked what "presence" meant. It would be,according to Miller, a place for consultation between college faculty and librarians, adelivery point for services, perhaps a place for electronic data delivery too; it would notbe a place for collections. Mills thought graduate students needed more "Iokmobiles" inthe library, and Miller agreed, pointing out that the one we have are "originalequipment" and almost thirty years old; new ones are not commercially available. Millsalso asked about the need for security measures; Miller said not all materials arebarcoded, and so exit security is still necessary, especially to prevent inadvertentremoval of books, etc.

Connolly remembered that library staffing problems have been with us for many years,and asked why they have never been resolved. Miller's response was that our collectionsize is small, our enrollment is small, and it has taken a long time to convince theadministration that these are not the criteria to use in determining the size of staff.They did add nine new positions last year, and improvements will continue slowly, amidhard choices.

Prof. Harvey Bender raised the question of space in the Hesburgh Library used by non­library institutes/offices. According to Miller, almost 200/0 of the total space in thebuilding is devoted to non-library use. There is a long-term commitment to eliminatethis, but he does not know how long it will take. Prof. Greg Sterling asked about special"reading rooms" for graduate students and faculty, and Miller thought they would beappropriate.

Prof. Stephen Fallon wondered how the University Libraries would be responding to theUniversity's emphasis on graduate education. What hard choices would have to be made tosupport one program over another? Miller said the library would never havesignificant resources for all programs. The University, not the library, really decideswhich ones to support. The library is committed to some, like theology and medievalstudies; others like romance languages and German will never be substantial collections.Sterling pointed out that some areas which are underfunded critically deprive not onlythat discipline but several related ones of proper resources. How can these small budgetprograms be improved? Notre Dame, according to Miller, does not use a numericalformula based on majors and faculty to fund a discipline. He knows classics isunderfunded, but its position has improved. Library budgeting has not kept up withprogram thrusts because if one goes up, another goes down; the library does not want topenalize anyone, so occasionally special money is available and is allocated. Vecchioasked who pays for and who uses the sports collections. Miller said all funding is fromnon-library sources; the users are substantial numbers of students and otherresearchers.

The chair thanked Miller for his time and candor, and the senate responded with a roundof applause. Conway moved to old business. Connolly asked what has happened to thegovernance committee. The chair replied that a report will come from the newcommittee once it has organized.

As new business, the chair called on Dr. Ellen Weaver for a resolution on the use ofinclusive language. At the request of Associate Provost Kathleen Cannon, D.P., and theFaculty/Student Committee on Women {a committee whose existence originated with the

senate), Weaver was to present the resolution on gender-neutral language. A policysuch as this would be proposed for inclusion in the Academic Manual through action ofthe Academic Council, and in du Lac. Fr. Malloy has asked through the Associate Provostthat the senate pass this and send it to the council through its right of agenda; in this wayit would be like a referendum and would gain added strength. The chair of the Year ofWomen Committee (another senate idea), Dean Eileen Kolman, has endorsed the proposaltoo. Weaver, speaking on the resolution, pointed out that it goes beyond simplyrecommending gender-neutral language to mandate it in the life of the University. Shemoved the resolution, and the secretary seconded.

In the discussion, Prof. Leo Despres (sympathetic to the intent of the resolution) wasunsure what paragraph two meant, especially in regard to certain courses taught at thisand every university. The practice of language is the result of many long-standingtraditions. In teaching we should be able to assign readings without regard to their"inclusive" nature, only their relevancy to the course. Who is to judge a person'swritings in this regard? He was unsure what the resolution would lead to. Blenkinsopwas similarly troubled with the "mandate" aspect of the proposal. What does and does notcome under the regulation of the university? What and who is the enforcement? Alsosympathetic with the intent of the resolution, he would prefer to see something like,"The University encourages inclusive language." Borelli proposed the language, "Useinclusive language in all the public documents of the University and in its teaching."Weaver agreed with the point Blenkinsopp and Despres were making and sought a betterwording from the senate. Connolly spoke sympathetically too but found the procedure tobe lacking: the senate should not be expected to vote on something it had seen only fifteenminutes bore. Either the idea or the function of the senate is trivialized.

Prof. Louis MacKenzie also thought the second paragraph was poorly stated as well assomewhat pompous and self-righteous. Prof. Charles Parnell saw preaching as a form ofspeaking and thus redundant in the resolution; the whole thing he thought was Anglo­centric. Borelli moved to table the resolution until the next meeting, and Harmatiukseconded. The senate concurred.

The chair recognized Mills. Representing the Gulf Crisis Action Committee he presentedits petition on the Persian Gulf situation for senate endorsement: about 1,800signatures have been collected from those in the Notre Dame/Saint Mary's community.Weaver seconded. Prof. Walter Pratt, for reasons of time and lack of prior knowledge ofthe resolution, moved to table it until the next meeting, Borelli seconded and the senateconcurred.

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn, which the senate did at 9:20 p.m.

In attendance:AntsaklisBartlettBenderBentleyBlenkinsoppBonelloBorelliBunkerChangConnollyConway

DespresFallonHarmatiukHemphillJordanLeightonLombardoMacKenzieMartinMillsMoody

NicholsParnellPilkintonPillayPorterPowerPowersPrattSheehanSporlederSterling

TagesonVecchioWasowskiWeaverYoder

1 '_ ,~

Absent:BandyopadhyayDelaneyFalkenburg

Excused:CostiganEsch

FuchsHayesJerez-Farran

O'ConnorScully

Johnson, C.L.Johnson, P..LapsleyLabaree

McCarthyMillerHerro

Respectfully submitted,

Peter J. Lombardo, Jr.Secretary

Journal

Faculty Senate

January 30, 1991

The Chair Professor Paul Conway called the Senate to order at 7:34

p.m. in room 104 of the Center for Continuing Education. After the

opening prayer, the journals for November 6 and December 11 were

accepted as corrected.

Professor Frank Connolly was recognized, as chair of the

Administration Committee, to present the policy on discriminatory

harassment. Since the University did not have such a policy, the

Office of the Provost had been reviewing the situation and had pre­

sented a draft of a proposed policy to the Senate for comment and

endorsement. This draft was assigned to Connolly's committee, and it

was seeking the views of Senators as it began its work. In the

discussion many Senators expressed their views.

Professor Mario Borelli thought such a policy statement was long

overdue, but was unclear on where such incidents should be reported;

he urged the committee to be careful on this subject. Professor

Richard Sheehan found the wording troublesome; how does one prove

"intentionally" and just what does constitute "discrimination"?

Professor Walter Pratt was hesitant to legislate on matters of speech

but felt it would be correct to point out instances of inappropriate

behavior; however, if the Office of the Provost was charged to

investigate every alleged incident, this would have chilling effect on

what we say. Professor Joseph Blenkinsopp, in defining harassment,

-1-

said it was continuous, repeated behavior in respect to an individual

or class; a clear idea of the concept should be incorporated into the

policy. Professor Leo Desprei believed discriminatory behavior was

such that it would create an intimidating environment.

Professor Clark Power spoke in favor of such a policy. Even if

there is a possibility that the oversensitive will abuse the proce­

dures, the benefits far outweight the liabilities. Notre Dame needs

to create a climate where such behavior is frowned upon. Despres said

he would never be able to offer a course on racial or ethnic groups if

he feared upsetting someone with an off-hand remark; we should have a

clear policy that consistently intimidating behavior would not be

tolerated. Professor John Yoder turned to the grievance procedure

outlined in the policy; he believed those groups which might be

offended should be included in the adjudication of a complaint. Kurt

Mills distinguished between offending and discriminating speech and

behavior, and asked that the document be clear on the difference.

Connolly thanked the Senators for so frankly expressing their views

and said that his committee would report a recommendation at a future

meeting.

The Provost Timothy O'Meara having arrived, the chair recessed the

meeting to hear the Provost's remarks. Senators questioned O'Meara,

and he responded.

-2-

Paul Conway: It is my pleasure now to introduce our Provost with whom

we are having a dialogue tonight. It says this in the minutes where

"dialogue" is not spelled corr~ctly, but we are still going to have

the dialogue. Tim has become so much a part of us that we feel he is

almost like a senator, but we haven't got him thinking that way all

year yet. At least we welcome him every year and this year he's

coming a little after his birthday. Normally he comes on his birth­

day. It is always a pleasure to introduce our Provost. Maybe we

would want to close the door so he can tell us things that others

won't be able to hear outside.

Timothy O'Meara: Good evening. Thank you. Here I am and the usual

thing is I have nothing to say until you ask a question.

Harvey Bender: My usual question: how are things?

Timothy O'Meara: In the world? Pretty bad. In the nation, not so

good. The poor Economy is hitting the universities. In many univer­

sities there will be cutbacks. In many instances raises will be

small, perhaps zero.

Fortunately, I can tell you that we are in good financial health. We

will have reasonable increments, smaller than in former years but

still positive. We've got to keep the tuition below 9 percent, and

that is the driving force. We've got some uncontrollable costs; the

operational costs of new buildings will put a strain on the budget.

We are coming to the end of a period of enormous growth in physical

facilities. For the rest of the 1990's I predict an emphasis not on

new buildings but on renovation and restoration of old ones. We've

always been conservative. Places are getting into trouble because of

-3-

their heavy dependence on soft or government money. If you look at

the AAUP ratings, our full professors will remain basically at the

same position. Assistant professors will slip. And Associate pro­

fessors will go up significantly. We remain easily in the top quin­

tile. Our position for each rank will be around 24th. If you

mUltiply by a cost of living coefficient we are one of the highest in

the country.

Another question that comes to mind is the undergraduate mix of women

to men. It is being reviewed. That was what we said we would do when

we went from 28 percent to 37 percent four to five years ago. I think

that the quality of the faculty is very strong. Remember in the

1980's there was a dual proposal in the PACE Report to raise salaries

and to apply high standards in appointments and promotions. We

accomplished that some years ago. I am personally proud of being a

member of our faculty. The quality of the student body remains

strong. On the minority issue--and this is one of Fr. Malloy's

goals--we have gone from 11 percent to 15 percent. We achieved that

ahead of schedule. A major goal was to dramatically increase finan­

cial aid. As for our Catholic identity, this is always a concern:

how we can remain a Catholic University in a pluralistic society? We

must continue to rely on a strong partnership between the founding

religious community, Holy Cross, and all the faculty, not just the

Catholic faculty. (The Jesuits are just beginning to face the

problem: You can't have a Jesuit university by simply having a number

of Jesuits at the top.) In terms of women faculty, we have come a

long way but we still have a way to go. We've been especially for­

tunate in receiving a major bequest from Clare Boothe Luce which will

provide funding in perpetuity to encourage women to go into science

and engineering--endowed assistant professorships, scholarships,

fellowships on the graduate level.

-4-

So, what else would you like to touch upon? There are many areas I

must have missed. By the way, I am an optimist by nature, you know.

Morton Fuchs: Lately, over the last couple of months, we have been

reading in the Observer and through conversation about what appears to

be a crisis in enrollment in various classes and the DART system seems

to have crystallized this: students not being able to take classes

in their own major and so forth. I was wondering if this is a serious

problem and if so what is being done about it?

Timothy O'Meara: First of all, DART has been criticized. DART tech­

nically is not responsible for creating the problem, only for

revealing it. DART is the computerized system for registration.

~irect !ccess Registration by !elephone. I think that there is a

definite problem in Arts and Letters. There are small problems in the

courses offered in other colleges, one or two here and there. If I

think of the departments in Arts and Letters, the ones that come to

mind are American Studies, Anthropology, English, Economics,

Philosophy and Theology. Remember in 1970, approximately 40 percent

of our majors were in Arts and Letters. In 1980, 30 percent. In

1990, 42 percent. There is indeed a cycle. Ten years ago the problem

was with Chemical Engineering. At that time we asked: Should we put

gates on the colleges? So that is one source of the enrollment

problem, the shift in majors. But I'd rather be overenrolled than

underenrolledl Remember the gloom in Arts and Letters in the early

1980's when the enrollment dropped to 30 percent.

-5-

Here are more reasons for the problem: the new fine arts

and literature requirements of the 1980's; the reduction of teaching

loads in Arts and Letters; the change in the Social Science/History

requirement.

A few words about the five-year plan. The speed of the plan is

clearly going to be conditioned by the economic conditions I mentioned

earlier. It is going to slow down. But we are putting resources into

the various colleges, and especially Arts and Letters because of the

surge in enrollments. Another reason for the problem with course

availability is schedule compression. Let me illustrate it this way:

suppose you had an enormous classroom building so that you had enough

space to schedule every class at either 10 or 11. What would the

effect be? Clearly every student here would have trouble getting into

three courses out of five! I think that part of the problem is

created by schedule compression, even now. We have to be especially

conscious of it with the new classroom building. We've got to try to

stretch the schedule. There will be resistance by faculty and by stu­

dents. Incidentally, as long as we have a healthy research and scho­

larly climate, I think the two plus two is the right teaching load.

You know in certain disciplines (such as biology) there are market

pressures for junior faculty to teach one plus zero. That's crazy.

What are you doing at a University with that kind of a teaching load?

Mort Fuchs just sent me a report on a meeting on how minorities should

succeed in academe. The distinguished mentors advised, "Whatever you

do, don't put much effort into teaching. Never advise students indi­

vidually. If you've simply got to advise students, advise them

collectively." What does that say about teaching? Funding agencies

have done great disservice to teaching because of the highly com-

-6-

petitive nature of their research grants. In the long run, even

research will suffer because you will not encourage the next genera­

tion of students to enter the ·profession. We preach it and we try to

practice it--you've got to have an equal emphasis on both.

O'Connor: This is more on Arts and Letters. This is just part of the

big problem on enrollments. For the students coming to a sense of

themselves as Catholic intellectuals, the first two years are really

important, especially the courses, I think, of the freshman seminars

and the core courses. It looks like there has been a steady erosion

of regular faculty teaching, particular the Core Course; I'm not too

sure about how the freshman seminars are doing. Even in the short

time I've been here that's gone from being almost all regular faculty

members teaching the sections to now (I think) only about half of the

sections. And obviously, that is something you can't change over­

night or anything like that, but do we have or are their grounds for

much optimisim in kind of reversing that trend or are we just dead on

a treadmill on that one?

Timothy O'Meara: I don't think that it is feasible to significantly

increase the number of regular faculty in all freshman sectors. If

you just count the number of sections and even if the teaching load

were three courses per semester, you would still have a very large

increase in the size of the faculty.

As for the main point, I myself am most motiviated by the challenge of

encouraging the development of Catholic intellectuals--writers,

artists, scientists. That is very close to my heart. I think the

-7-

times are changing for the better. Indeed, this year's annual meeting

of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities is on the

Challenge of the Catholic Inteilectual. We at last have gotten enough

confidence to put a feisty group of people together with a lot of

opposing views. Speakers will included Andrew Greeley, Michael

Buckley and Alasdair MacIntyre.

Mills: Can you tell me how you think the graduate school is going to

fare?

Timothy O'Meara: Very well. I think that it fits in with the pre­

ceding question. I think that people are ready for the development.

It is a logical next step in the light of the strong faculty that we

have. The reviews of the graduate departments that we are going

through now are much better than during the first cycle ten years ago.

Not only do they say better things about us: the_reviews also take us

seriously. The general reaction seems to be that our programs are

better than people out there think, much better. The problem is how

do we get the word out to applicants; some departments have become

rather good at this. It takes a lot of energy, but the first point

then is to get good students. I think Civil Engineering goes about it

with enormous vigor. So that is something for all of us to work on.

Why aren't more of our Ph.D's going to the best institutions to teach?

We will have to get the resources in the 1990s for good and attractive

stipends. That is at the heart of this matter. We need to build the

reputation of the graduate school. I am hopeful.

Mills: Has there been any serious discussion about summer funding?

-8-

Timothy O'Meara: For graduate students? Be it summer funding or

larger stipends for the academic year, it kind of all comes out of the

same kitty. There has been a lot of discussion, but the resources are

not coming in as fast as we'd like because of the economic situation

that I described earlier. Nathan Hatch has introduced his presti­

gious presidential fellowships. The plan for the 1990's will be to

work with new but reduced additional resources and the reallocation of

old ones. We will have to make a concerted effort to find donors to

fund scholarships for gradute students.

Bonello: Let's change the topic significantly. The mandatory retire­

ment is going to be lifted in the next year or so. Any reflections on

what will happen to our faculty given that change?

Timothy O'Meara: My opinion changes as I get older, and especially on

my birthday. I think nature will take care of it in the sense that

people will really not want to stay beyond 70. The main driving force

though is going to be financial. How do we survive for the remaining

20 years of our lives with medical costs, etc.? You can't have a com­

petency test at a specific age, say at 65, because that would be age

discrimination. If you're going to have a competency test, you've got

to do it every X years, say every five years. Okay, so suppose some­

body is unsatisfactory at 45. What do you do about it? Do you scold

them, give them counseling, might you fire them? If you do, then what

happens to tenure? So that, as you know, is the issue. Do you have

an answer, Frank?

Frank: No, I don't have an answer, but I guess I do think about it.

-9-

Timothy O'Meara: I think that people when they get to be a certain

age want to reflect on their lives. Others are like dynamos, they

keep going all the time. The driving force is going to be economic.

I don't have the answer. Perhaps one could teach half time, as a part

of entering retirement, and do it for, say, half pay. But I

wouldn't like to accomplish it through a new bureaucracy.

Despres: When it went from 65 to 70, what's been the experience with

the change? I mean, that ought to indicate something or other?

Timothy O'Meara: Well, in a way that has kind of led me to make. the

statement that I have made, because at Notre Dame I don't believe it

has been a problem, do you? I don't think it has. I gather in the

East sometimes the big schools have had problems.

Connolly: I was going to ask you a question on the recently elected

faculty committee on governance.

Timothy O'Meara: You want me to give my opinion of the individuals?

Frank: No, I want to ask you what is the Administration's attitude

toward the committee. Will you cooperate?

Timothy O'Meara: There is only one answer I can give to that!

Connolly: I'll just make a statement and you can comment. I very much

hope the Administration will be willing to seek ways to cooperate with

that committee and get into conversation with them.

-10-

Timothy O'Meara: I'm always open to conversation, you know that.

Naturally, people don't always like what I say. If the Senate pro­

ceeds as it says it will do, then this will go to the Academic Council

and there will be an honest discussion. We'll just have to see. If

you want me to really read the tea leaves, I think that in the end

there might very well be some change, but radical change will not

occur.

Weaver: You've probably had a chance to look over, maybe you haven't,

the results of the faculty survey on opening the tenure process. I

wonder what is your comment?

Timothy O'Meara: Well, that too is going to the Academic Council.

The results of the vote are clear. But what I'd like to see are the

reasons for it. There are no reasons given in that document. I'd

like to know what are the positive aspects of the change and what are

the negative ones.

Weaver: I think there were reasons given. And it has come up before.

Timothy O'Meara: I would not be in favor of, for example, having a

significantly earlier decision, earlier in the year. We have gone

through that discussion before. What I said here last year was that I

would not be in favor of stating what happens at every step of the

way. I still feel that way. I know what happens after a negative

decision is made and the campaigns that can be undertaken. I would

not want to see that happen during the process itself. That still is

my opinion.

-11-

Weaver: You are not convinced by the evidence of colleges where

results have been very positive?

Timothy O'Meara: No, I'm not. I think in the Notre Dame culture the

results are positive too. If I had voted on this when I was living in

the mathematics department, I would probably have voted along with

you. But nowadays I want to be convinced as to how a change will

enhance the quality of decisions. That is my question. Will we be

strengthened by the move or weakened?

Connolly: On the isolated question of announcing what the decision of

the departments has been on that particular case, are you aware of the

fact that it is the AAUP guideline, and we really are going against

the guideline by the AAUP? I want to also mention that I am aware of

at least one department in which the outside evaluating team for the

department commented precisely on that point, that Notre Dame is not

notifying people when the decision leaves the department as it recom­

mends it should.

Timothy O'Meara: I am also aware of the fact that it is very rare

indeed that chairs will cast a different recommendation from their

committees, and that there have been occasions when chairs have said,

"I don't really agree with this recommendation but I am going to go

along with it." They ask the dean to do something about it. My

reason for bringing that up is that I fear that there will be pressure

on some departments to lower standards. The question then remains:

what are the reasons for disclosure--other than the fact that others

do it.

-12-

Connolly: Doesn't it get known in somewhat of an informal way?

Timothy O'Meara: Yes and no. Now, there are some departments in

which I would have confidence. There are a number of departments in

which I would not.

Conway: Could I narrow this down to just the department chairs. That

was a select group, and they were a part of the whole process. Not

one of the thirty-six that responded was in favor of the present

system. What does that say to you?

Timothy O'Meara: Precisely what you've said.

Conway: So it doesn't offend you. The upper level is very much

opposed to this, and their feeling was that the lower end would also

be against it. So now here is the evidence showing you the lower end

is in favor of change. Will the deans go by what you say or will they

go on their own thoughts on this? What is your fee~ing? Will they go

along with your thinking or go on their own?

Timothy O'Meara: This is a loaded question. From all that I have

heard from the deans, they are against this on their own. Our deans

are very forthright individuals. That's what I want and that's what I

encourage. That doesn't mean we don't strategize once in a while, but

that is rare. On this particular issue, some of the deans have

already expressed themselves publicly as strongly as I am doing now--

-13-

with no prompting from me. Our agreement on this issue comes from

shared values derived from common experiences. I return to the basic

question; how will your suggestions strenghen the quality of our deci­

sions? What are the disadvantages to the faculty? How will you

balance these values?

Connolly: Do those comments apply with equal force to a policy of

"permitting" a department to reveal a decision--not requiring but per­

mitting?

Timothy O'Meara: This is usually if it's a negative decision, right?

Yes, I understand that and I have great sYmpathy for that. So I can

understand it unless it's made into a rule. You can't just do it to

the negatives as a general rule because then it is assumed that the

rest are positives. So on an individual basis and if there is good

reason to do it in a specific case, I will say fine. However, what is

the real motivation behind it? Is it that people should be told

earlier so that they can then start looking for a job? I think the

advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages for reasons I have

already given. Suppose that the department says no and the final out­

come is positive. What does this tell that individual about life in

the department in the future?

Fuchs: Under what circumstances could that possibly happen?

Timothy O'Meara: All I can say is that it has happened. I'll give

you a circumstance. Suppose you have a department that is resistant

-14-

to change and growth, and in that department this candidate is too

uppity (meaning, of course, this person is going to challenge us if

the person becomes an associate professor). "This particular indivi­

dual doesn't fit in." Or "This person is coming up too soon." And

yet in every other way the individual looks better than anyone else

that's come up from that department in some time.

Fuchs: So that would also have to be an inconsistency with the out­

side evaluation.

Timothy O'Meara: Not necessarily. I see some people in this room

nodding their heads.

Fallon: But you take losses either way. I can attest as a recent

junior faculty member to a sense of feeling on the outside and distrust

of what is above. And in this time when we are trying to build a

strong junior faculty which will stay at Notre Dame in the coming

years when the word is that there will be a Ph.D. shortage, and people

will be lured away, wouldn't you want to be very careful not to have

your young faculty think of themselves as not part of the operation

from the beginning? It is particularly distressing to think that others

know you are on the way out and you not know yourself. That's the

spectre that hangs over you the last few years before tenure.

Timothy O'Meara: Well, nobody knows at all until January of the sixth

year, anyway.

Fallon: That's a very long year.

-15-

Timothy O'Meara: Well, I understand the problem, but I assure you it

is no better anywhere else.

Fallon: Much of this is in the idea that in that year someone could

be getting a shot at the markets.

Timothy O'Meara: But then what you are really saying is eighteen

months. That's a long time to look for a job. That's not even

healthy. What would the effect be on that person's presence in the

classroom, and on his/her colleagues? Also, the anxiety of tenure is

not peculiar to Notre Dame. I do believe, though, that much more

counselling is needed. For example, we have a department with a new

chair who asked if a candidate could be given a seventh year without

going through the process. I encouraged that by way of experiment. I

think that's a good development; that's one of the things I see when I

go to other universities, a form of counselling. So I see merit in

what you are saying, and I am willing to explore this possibility

further.

Sheehan: In most disciplines there is basically a once-a-year job

market, so when you're talking about adding that extra four to five

months 1 which is effectively what it is, you are really talking about

one more shot at the job market. When you have someone that came up

last year and was turned down, if they had been given an inkling

early, they would have a shot at last year's job market as well as

this year's. If turning it around, you know that you have some proba­

bility of being turned down and you have a particularly bad job

market, then maybe you would have the ability to go into a better job

market.

-16-

Timothy O'Meara: I see your point about the two markets, two shots.

But I come back to my question. What effect would this have on that

person's presence in the classroom and on his/her relations with

colleagues? Nevertheless, I am willing to explore the possibility

whereby the decision might be made by January, provided all appeals

would be completed by May. I am still concerned with this early deci­

sion, without giving people enough time to prove themselves in their

disciplines, with rushing the whole process. Now, remember that I am

only saying that I would consider exploring the possibilities.

Fuchs: I don't have a question but I was wondering if this was

something your office might do for us as a suggestion with regard to

the hiring practice. Many times we have to deal with spouses, and the

spouse might be a professional Ph.D. in a different area than the can­

didate. Would it be possible for your office at the beginning of the

academic year to submit to all chairpersons a list of other depart­

ments and what they are looking for. In other words, it would be very

helpful for me to know, for instance, that the history department is

looking for a professor of history, economics or so forth. That would

really expedite things. That would really help.

Timothy O'Meara: Surely the spouse would be contacting the history

department early in the game to see what openings may exist. In what

way would a published list help?

-17-

Fuchs: Sometimes I find out late. In other words, let's say that I

am talking to someone on the phone for a biology position and he or

she tells me that his spouse is in history. If I can't get hold of

the chairman, there is sometimes time involved where it could be

helpful.

Timothy O'Meara: Clark, if you were chair, how would you feel about

that, if someone said, what are you looking for? What are your posi­

tions? Would it be clear what your positions were?

Power: At the beginning of the year? I'm not sure I would know.

Timothy O'Meara: Leo, do you have a comment on that?

Despres: Yes, as an ex-chair. One of the problems you get into is

the difficulty of not cooperating with biology. It's rather

embarrassing to say, in effect, that such and such a person is a

French historian and not very attractive.

Timothy O'Meara: I understand. That's going to happen. I have no

problem with such a list, and I would ask Kathleen Cannon to do it.

Sporleder: How are things working with the performing arts center?

Timothy O'Meara: As you know, for buildings on the Notre Dame campus,

we have Ellerbe as architects. But for a performing arts center, with

-18-

its ultra-specific needs and uses, it was suggested that we bring in

consultants to discuss with us program concepts and ideas; this is not

usually done for other buildings. So, we have had visits from four

groups of consultants, have heard their presentations, and have

selected one to work with us further. We have had input from others:

chairs of departments, the dean, the faculty. The consultants will

make recommendations after further analysis and let the architects

take it from there. We are moving ahead on the building.

As for the business building, we are continuing to analyze our needs.

I've asked the dean to look into the future to see what our needs and

programs might be, and then make recommendations on the kind and size

of building to put up. And we are looking at other business schools

to see what they have. Then after this period of analysis, we will

see if our present funding is adequate for the building which is being

recommended. Maybe it will be, maybe it won't. We will have to see,

but we are moving forward with it.

As you can see, the classroom building is coming along quite well.

Wasowski: Supposing that someone proposed a merger between Earth

Sciences and Civil Engineering. What would you as the provost see as

the pros and cons?

Timothy O'Meara: I will tell you my thinking on this issue. For 20

-19-

years there has been talk of upgrading Earth Sciences, but it has been

only talk." There were other priorities in the College that took pre­

cedence. There hasn't been a ·critical mass in Earth Sciences to

attack the problems. Recently it was proposed that combining Earth

Sciences with Civil Engineering would be a natural fit. In Civil,

there have been some very successful initiatives and programs deve­

loped, such as the center for environics. So we talked with people in

both departments and both Colleges about a merger, and it made sense.

You know the growth priorities for Science are in the life sciences,

and I support that. So keeping Earth Sciences in that College would

not improve it. But I believe there is potential in a merger, and a

strong possibility of a donor for a building for this new venture.

That's the surest way for this unit to enter the graduate field. This

is not a shotgun wedding, not an administrator's deft stroke, but a

genuine merger, a healthy marriage, that will improve the entire

situation.

Sheehan: I would like to ask about enrollments, especially in the

College of Business Administration. The talk lately in-the paper has

been about closed courses, and that prompted me to look into the

situation in the Finance Department in relation to the Economics

Department in Arts and Letters. Much to my surprise, Finance has an

approximately equal percentage of courses offered that are closed as

Government or Economics.

Timothy O'Meara: Are you sure of closed courses?

-20-

Sheehan: Yes, close to 55 or 60 percent.

Timothy O'Meara: Oh, closed to people in other parts of business?

Sheehan: No, closed in terms of the size of the room, so closed to

all. So while you mentioned the enrollment problems in Arts and

Letters, given that the average class size in Finance is greater, it

strikes me that the enrollment difficulties were equally as pressing

in some areas of the College of Business.

Timothy O'Meara: Thanks for pointing that out. I understand what you

are saying. I didn't realize it was that tight. Let me just make one

comment here about the comparison between Business and Arts and

Letters. Generally speaking the courses in the business college seem

to be very well managed in terms of course enrollments. Almost all

the courses have an enrollment of about 35 to 45, so that the load is

evenly distributed. In Arts and Letters especially when you have a

Ph.D. program, things are much more varied. What is the teaching load

right now? It's two plus two in business, unless you're doing a gra­

duate course. I would agree that there is a need for additional

faculty in Business, in due course, but right now you have more posi­

tions than you can fill, and the problem is to find quality people for

those positions. The question of additional resources will return

when you have filled them.

-21-

Sheehan: Which leads me to part two, in terms of additional resour­

ces: I mentioned simply the enrollment numbers as an anomaly. We

have a situation in business where we consistently make offers to

new Ph.D's that are dramatically in excess of what people in the same

department receive, and in excess of what people who have already

demonstrated some commitment to Notre Dame are receiving, in some

cases over $10,000. Does that offend your notion of equity?

Timothy O'Meara: If you think you've got problems with your

colleagues in your own department, think of the comparison between a

new Ph.D. in accountancy and one in philosophy. If you think you're

offended, think of what the rest of the faculty feel. I make this

point every year here. Do you know that a new assistant professor in

accountancy, maybe not even with a Ph.D. in hand yet, is paid $65,000

to $70,000? I have not tried to hide this phenomenon from the faculty;

I come right up front with it. I don't particularly like it, but this

is America. And if you were to do otherwise, you might as well close

your accountancy department.

O'Connor: But I thought this was Notre Dame.

Timothy O'Meara: We don't get our accountants from Notre Dame. We

get them from the national market. But there is a beneficial aspect

of this: When this happens, we do what we can for the faculty who are

here, and we have been able to push salaries in general up. Compared

to the national market, our starting salaries for junior faculty are

-22-

very good. A Theology review committee was favorably impressed

when they found out how well we pay our theologians. In other words,

we do the best we can across the board. Finally perhaps at some time

we should ponder the philosophical question: forgetting about

market conditions, within the cosmos, should an accountant be getting

twice as much as a philosopher?

Sheehan: Just one tiny bit more: You've been very successful in

moving up salaries in all the faculty ranks to the top 20 percent

overall, but that would not necessarily pertain to each department

across fields. Would you care to comment on what that would imply

about the quality of faculty we've been able to attract given that in,

say, theology we are in the top 5 percent, while in accountancy we

might be in the top 50 percent?

Timothy O'Meara: I see your point, but quite frankly I am not psycho­

logically ready to offer a brand new Ph.D. $80,000.

Despres: Since I'm on the Senate's benefits committee and since you're

talking about salaries: often times we wonder on that committee when

you refer to the rank of full professors being in the top 20 percent,

what does that look like when you allow for the chairs?

Timothy O'Meara: I know what you are saying, but other schools that

are in the rankings also have chairs. I think that by and large our

salaries are good, but I have not segregated the chairs because then I

have no measure to go by. The chairs of course generally speaking get

high salaries but not invariably, so that does pick up the averages.

-23-

Despres: Do they pick it up disproportionately, compared to some of

our peers which do not have as many chairs?

Timothy O'Meara: I just don't know because I've never made a study of

it. I know that if we don't have a chair available and we have a very

promising professor according to whatever procedures we have for

determining this, then we try to move them along as rapidly as we can.

Any other questions?

Conway: I was hoping I wouldn't get depressed tonight over salaries

again. I hoped you wouldn't bring up the salaries thing because every

time you do that with accounting, they say Conway's been here for 30

years, he must be making a hundred and a half. It makes me look

terrible. When I tell them what I am making, they don't believe me.

Timothy O'Meara: You mean because you're making so much more? (Laughter)

Conway: Thanks very much for coming, Tim. We appreciate it. (Round

of applause)

The Senate adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

-24-

Respectfully SUbmitted,

Peter J. Lombardo, Jr.

Secretary

Members Present:

Antsaklis Costigan Lombardo Sheehan

Bandyopadhyay Despres Mill~ Sporleder

Bender Esch Moody Sterling

Bentley Fallon Nichols Tageson

Blenkinsopp Fuchs O'Connor Vecchio

Bonello Harmatiuk Parnell Wasowski

Borelli Herro Pillay Weaver

Chang Johnson, C.L. Power Yoder

Connolly Jordan Powers Labaree

Conway Leighton Pratt

Members Excused:

Bartlett

Falkenberg

Mackenzie

Pilkinton

Scully

Members Absent:

Bunker

Delaney

Hayes

Hemphill

Jerez-Farran

Johnson, P.

Lapsley

Martin

McCarthy

Miller

Porter

JournalFaculty Senate

February 4, 1991

The chair Professor Paul Conway called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm in room 202 of theCenter for Continuing Education. After a prayer offered by the secretary Peter Lombardo,Professor Michael Costigan proposed a moment of silence for our late colleague ProfessorLeonard Savoie. In accord with Senate custom, Costigan's remarks about ProfessorSavoie are attached as appendix A of this Journal and will be forwarded to the office of theProvost, the University Archives and Professor Savoie's family.

Standing Committee Reports

• Academic Affairs - chair John Yoder reported that his committee was reviewinglibrary priorities and policies in light of director Robert Miller's recent remarksin the Senate.

• Benefits - chair Frank Bonello reviewed some pending Senate proposals beforea sub-committee of the Budget Priorities Committee. His committee'sreport on facu1ty compensation is coming along and will be presented soon.

• Student Affairs - co-chair Sandra Harmatiuk reported that the administration'sresponse to a Campus Life Council resolution on "date rape" has been positiveand encouraging. The "student bill of rights" is still under discussion.

• Administration - chair Frank Connolly reported that his committee has receiveda good response from senators on his recent review of the "discriminatoryharassment" policy. The committee is still discussing the policy and will reportto the Senate soon. They would like a precisely-worded statement to prohibitharassment but not infringe on First Amendment rights; as written the policynow lacks any sort of intermediary or ombudsman.

For the ad-hoc committee on inclusive language, Professor Ellen Weaver moved(Lombardo seconded) a resolution on the subject. In the discussion which followedseveral points were made: Professor Louis MacKenzie had doubts that the "whereas"clauses were proper concerns of the University; Conway wondered whether such a policywould infringe on the work of the "harassment" resolution, currently in committeediscussion, and whether it would be part of the Academic Articles; Borelli agreed withMacKenzie's point, and Weaver accepted as a friendly amendment the striking of the"whereas" clauses and leaving only the "be it resolved" clause.

MacKenzie thought the resolution would help if it referred to a respectfu1 style of speechtoward all others. Professor David O'Connor wanted to change "proclamations anddocuments" to "official communications." Weaver commented that the Universityadministration presented the Senate with two policies for debate: harassment and gender­inclusive language. She thought this was a good sign that they are seeking Senate input onthese matters.

Professor Leo Despres agreed that the "whereas" clauses could be eliminated, butProfessor Richard Sheehan thought they were important and should be kept; they set up thegrounds for the policy. Borelli objected that some of his ideas were taken out of context.Sheehan wanted a strong statement, and MacKenzie agreed that a solid one was needed butnot one that could be construed as infringing on academic freedom.

Connolly having called the question, the Senate agreed to the resolution including the"whereas" clauses but with some word changes: 34 in favor, 2 opposed, no abstentions.(See Appendix B for text).

Next, Weaver reported on a recent Senate survey of departmental chairs' views on openingup the tenure decision process. The summary is printed in Appendix C of this journal.Conway sought the Senate's advice on the proper approach to take in the Academic Councilin presenting the Senate's resolution on this matter; he was especially seeking support onwhether our resolution should be revised to settle the question of whether a chair "may" or"must" tell a candidate what his/her status is. Despres thought our resolution was clear:they must tell, and there is no discretion; Conway reported that deans are against this, andto gain support in the Council perhaps we can bend a bit on this proposal; it would befacing reality. However, O'Connor pointed out the survey indicated the chairs themselvesfavored it Professor Stephen Fallon thought perhaps the administration was simplystonewalling.

Professor Mario Borelli moved to revise the Senate's previously passed resolution, andProfessor Harvey Bender seconded. Professor Peter Moody called the question.However, this was not agreed to by the Senate and discussion continued on the Borellimotion. Connolly spoke against the motion, saying as originally approved it put theemphasis where it belonged, at the departmental level. Yoder questioned whether a Senateresolution already on the agenda of the Council can be changed. Despres thought insteadof a formal resolution, a "sense of the Senate" vote might be helpful in guiding the chair.Conway thought he was getting that from the discussion. Moody wondered why wewould want to stop at the departmental level; a candidate should know the decision eachstep of the way. Connolly thought that was what we had already approved, and otherSenators agreed.

Borelli withdrew his motion. Conway wanted some flexibility in dealing with theAcademic Council. A mandatory notification at each step would not pass, but somethingless than mandatory, he believed, would pass. Sheehan, trying to capture the sense of theSenate, reviewed the debate: the Senate would like mandatory notification of each step,with the decision and its rationale given to the candidate; but the Senate seems comfortablein allowing the chair some leeway in discussing this issue with the Council. Conwaythought this was what he needed.

Moody asked what rationale was to be given to the candidate? Despres responded that thedepartment chair could abstract from the committee's minutes what problems existed inhis/her candidacy. Although Connolly presented a sense of the Senate resolution on thistopic, it was not seconded. The Senate preferred to leave the matter in its chair's hands.

Bonello briefly stated that the Board of Trustees Academic and Faculty Affairs Committeewould meet. The topics to be discussed were: the state of the College of BusinessAdministration; the teaching of ethics at Notre Dame; progress on the facilities for thehandicapped.

Weaver called for adjournment, Borelli seconded and the Senate agreed at 8:58 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter J. LombardoSecretary

Present

AntsaklisBenderBentleyBlenkinsoppBonelloBorelliChangConnollyConwayCostiganDespresEschFallonHannatiuk:HemphillJerez-FarranJordanLeightonLombardoMacKenzieMoodyO'ConnorParnellPillayPorterPowersPrattScullySheehanSterlingTagesonLabaree - student rep.Mills - GSU rep.

Absent

BandyopadhyayBartlettBunkerDelaneyHayesHeroJohnson, C.Johnson, P.LapsleyMartinMcCarthyMillerNicholsPilkintonPowerWasowski

Excused

FalkenbergFuchsSporlederVecchio

Appendix A

A Memorial in Honor of

Professor Leonard M. Savoie

by

Professor Michael L. Costigan

Len Savoie was a devoted person. He was devoted to his profession, having excelled

in public accounting as a Price Waterhouse partner and later as executive vice-president of

the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, in business as vice-president and

controller of Clark Equipment Company, and in education as professor and chair of Notre

Dame's Department of Accountancy. Academics and practitioners sought Len's counsel as

few accountants possessed his technical knowledge. Len freely shared this knowledge with

his Notre Dame colleagues giving us all a richer appreciation for how academic concepts

are applied in the financial community.

He was devoted to Notre Dame. In his tenure as Department Chair, Len sought to

preserve the national reputation of the Department of Accountancy by attracting and

supporting outstanding faculty.

He was devoted to the Chicago Cubs as a life-long fan.

Finally, he was devoted to his wife Barbara, their ten children, and their

grandchildren. As a husband, father, and grandfather, Len's example represents the highest

standard for us all.

We all miss you Len. God bless you.

i\ppendixB

RESOLUTION TO THE F.a.CULTY SENATE

ViHEREAS: t:tJJJLProblerns au se ~.qhen v,:e use language disrespectful of racia.!} ethnic,.

religious and nati nality groups,. or disrespectful of the disabled} age groups}and the like; SUCll language is of deep (:oncern to tllose ~v1lo takeseriously tile dignity of each person.

TvVHERE.l\S:Gender exclusi~le language is inappropriate and intellectually

indefensible. Such language rnay' suggest discrimination against ':/'lomen) andfnay perpetuate a hierarchical order in which women are regarded as::;ubordinate, Such subordination denies people the opportunity to developtheir full potential and tllus is socially destructive to b()tll V·lomen and rnen. -

~;.E IT RESOL':/ED:That it shall be the policy of tile Universit}1 of Notre Dame to use

re::;pectful and :zender inclusive laneUa!2'e in its official communications and'-' I_' '_'

to call u.pon rnernbers of the Universit.y corflfIlunity to adopt such usage intIl€' conduct of the1r vyTork and th€'lr SOC13.1 life both VYithin and outside theNCltre Darne cO!Iullunity,

Appendix C

SUMMARY OF FACULTY SURVEY

KEY TO CHART

1 = I would be willing that the decision re RTP be sharedwith the candidate·as soon as it has been sent to theDean.

2 = I would be willing that the decision re RTP be sharedwith the candidate including the rationale for thedecision as soon as it has been sent to the Dean.

3 = I would be willing that the decision re RTP be sharedwith the candidate including the rationale for thedecis~on when the entire process has been completed.

4 = I prefer the present syste.. ; i.e. that the decision reRTP is not revealed to the candidate at any point inthe process.

5 = I am indifferent towards the resolution.

6 = Other (Comment here was often: The Faculty SenateResolution as stated).

7 = (On questionnaire for Chairs only) I would like to bepermitted to share the decision re RTP with thecandidate as soon as the process has been completed.

OPTION CHOSEN TCATEGORY 0

T1 2 3 4 5 , 7 A

LS

FACULTY (NON-ATP COMMITTEE) 15 167 8 4 1 2 197

PRESENT OR FORMER ATP COMMITTEE 30 134 23 15 4 4 210

CHAIRPERSONS 5 15 6 0 2 1 7 36

.TOTALS 50 316 37 19 7 7 7 443

COMMENTARY: A total of 307 Faculty Surveys were returned: 36 ChairpersonSurveys were returned: a total return of 443.

'>Ilmnary .t T.tlulallon by F E. ....'~

!~ Jar-will' 1l1li1

Appendix C

RESPONSES TO FACULlY SENATE QUESTIONNAIRE: RESOLUI10N ON REAPPOINTMENTS, TENURE " PROM0I10N

KEY TO CHART:

A = Presently or formerly member of departmental ATP committeeB = Have never served on departmental ATP CommitteeC = Not eligible to serve on departmental ATP Committee

(N.B. large number in College of Arts & Letters reflects large number of adjunct faculty.)

1 = I would be wiDing that the decision re RTP be shared with the candidate as soon as it basbeen sent to the Dean.

2 = I would be willing that the decision re RTP be shared with the candidate including therationale for the decision as soon as it has been sent to the Dean.

3 = I would be willing that the decision re RTP be shared with the candidate including therationale for the decision when the entire process has been completed.

4 = I prefer the present system; i.e. that the decision re RTP is not revealed to the candidate atany point in the process.

5 = I am indifferent towards the resolution.

6 = Other (Comment here was often: The Faculty Senate Resolution as stated).

R G EJEJ[JEJ OTIIER: ca.E

ARTS '" LETTERS JlRESHMAN YEAR ROTC, RAJ) LA.a,OF STUDIES NOCOUECE

P INDICATm

LI

A a c A • C A • C A • C A • C A • C A a c A • c

ES

1 I 2 2 , 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 I 1 2

ez 52 l' .... zt • » 1• 3 • 14 3 l', 4 2 1. 3 1 I 1 Z1 14 24

J • 1 1 oS 4 1 1 1 • 4 1

4 It I I Z J Z

5 3 1 I

, 1 1 Z 1 I

*Where #1 and #2, or #1, #2 and #3, were checked the response was counted as #2. The important difference between #1 and#2 is that #2 indicates a willingness that the rationale for the decision be shared. Checking all three options would seem to indicatesupport of openness at every stage of the process.

Appendix C

TABUlATION OF awRMAN'S SURVEY 00REAPPOINTMENTS. TENURE AND PROMOTION (RlP)

ARTS &LEUEBS SCIENCE ENGINEERING BUS. ADM, LIBRARy OttER TOTAL

. I would be willing. to share 4 0 0 1 0 0 5my decision fe RTP with thecancfldate as soon as It hasbeen sent to. the Dean.

I would be Willing to share my 9 1 1 1 2 1 1 5decision re ATP with the candidateincluding my rationale for thedecision as soon as it has beensent to the Dean.

t would be willing to share my 4 0 0 1 0 1 6decision ra RlP with the candidateincluding my rationale for thedecision when the entire processhas been completed.

I would like to be permitted to 4 2 0 0 1 0 7share the decision fe RTP with thecanddate as soon as the processhas been completed.

t prefer the present system of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0nol revealing to the candidate mydecision al any point In the process.

I am indifferent towards the 1 1 0 0 0 0 2motion.

OTI-ER 0 0 0 0 1 0

JournalFaculty SenateMarch 6, 1991

The chair Professor Paul Conway called the Senate to order at 7:35 pm in room 202 ofthe Center for Continuing Education. After an opening prayer by Professor Clark Power,the chair called upon the standing committees to report.

Standing Committee Reportsa. Academic Affairs - Professor John Yoder, chair, presented a resolution from his

committee calling upon the Administration to make several improvements in theUniversity Libraries, including additional funding. After much discussion, the Senateasked the committee to review its resolution and report back at a later date. Yoder alsoreported that the Governance Review Committee had organized itself and held severalmeetings; he is the Senate's liaison with that group and will continue to report on itsactivities.

b. Administration - the chair Professor Frank Connolly asked the Senators forcomments on the proposed discriminatory harassment policy, to guide his committee intheir review of the Provost's suggested document. Members distinguished between"offensive" and "harassing" behavior which would lead to physical injury, propertydamage or personal intimidation; preventing the latter should be the real intent of thepolicy. He also had serious reservations on the First Amendment aspects of the proposal.The Senate's lengthy discussion indicated that others were concerned with these problemstoo. In addition several members felt the relationship of this proposal to the sexualharassment policy had to be clarified. The general feeling was that Senators objectedstrongly to possible infringements on free speech and academic freedom. and Connollysaid the committee would weight such comments carefully.

c. Student Affairs - Professor Sandra Harmituik, co-chair, reported on a recentmeeting of the Campus Life Council, of which she is an ex-officio member for theSenate; it considered several revisions to duLac and two proposals on the honesty code.

d. Benefits - chair Professor Frank Bonello reported that the sub-subcommittee of theBudget Priorities Committee, of which he is a member, has considered the Senate'sproposal on parental leave; legal challenges have recently called into question whetherthe University would be in compliance with the law even with the Senate's proposal, sofurther work is needed there. The group has also been considering some changes inTlAA/CREF policies. The Senate's Benefits Committee would welcome comments fromSenators and will have a resolution on the subject in April.

The Senate proceeded to vote for its representatives on the following Universitycommittees: Academic and Faculty Affairs of the Board of Trustees; Campus LifeCouncil; Board of Traffic and Parking Appeals; and Judicial Review Board. The staffsecretary will count the ballots and notify the winners.

Under "Old Business", Professor Ronald Wasowski, CSC, asked that the Journal bedistributed promptly. Professor David O'Connor welcomed the publication in the~Dame Re.port of the minutes of Faculty Board in Control of Athletics meetings.

As "New Business", Professor Panos Antsaklis reported on his work as the Senate'srepresentative to the University Parking Committee. The committee is consideringseveral charges in parking regulations to improve the situation and would likesuggestions from the Senate. Antsaklis opened the floor for discussion. Issues raisedincluded the percentage of reserved spaces on the inner campus; the split in reservedspots for faculty vs. reserved spots for administration; the seemingly haphazard nature of

reserved parking on the inner campus; the possibility of an annual parking fee; and theinstallation of parking lot gates. Antsaklis asked if there was a deep concern on thereserved parking issue, and little was shown.

Professor Sterling called for adjournment. Fuchs seconded and the Senate agreed at 9:29.

Respectfully Submitted,

Peter J. LombardoSecretary

Members Present:

AntsaklisBenderBentleyBlenkinsoppBonelloChangConnollyConwayFalkenbergFallonFuchsHarmatiukJordanLeightonLombardo

Members Absent:

BandyopadhyayBartlettBorelliBunkerCostiganDelaneyEschHayesHemphillHerroJerez-Farran

Members Excused:

DepresMartinWeaver

MillerMoodyO'ConnorParnellPillayPorterPowerPowersPrattSheehanSporlederSterlingVecchioWasowskiYoderMiUs

Johnson, C.L.Johnson, P.G.LapsleyMacKenzieMcCarthyNicholsPilkintonScullyTagesonLabaRe

1

JournalFaculty SenateApril 9, 1991

The meeting was called to order by the chair Professor Paul Conway at 7:30 pm in room202 of the Center for Continuing Education. Professor John Yoder led the prayer.

Report of the Chair:

Conway reported that the regional AAUP has invited the Faculty Senate to a program tobe held on May 4. A panel composed of members from various institutions will discussthe role of faculty in governance. Conway speculated that there are only about 50 dues­paying members of the AAUP on campus, but urged senators to attend since this has beena burning topic this past year.

Conway announced that the last Academic Council meeting had discussed the merger ofEarth Sciences and Civil Engineering departments, updated the topic of cultural diversity,and discussed the status of the proposed policy on discriminatory harassment. Anothermeeting will be held on April 30. On the agenda will be a report on athletics, and theSenate proposal on notifying candidates along the way on tenure decisions. Conwayreminded the Senate that our recent poll showed that out of 36 chairpersons answering,only one preferred the status quo, and that some two-thirds of 210 present or former CAPmembers wanted to have candidates notified of the department decision after it was made,along with a rationale for the decision. he noted that our present policy is not consistentwith our peer institutions, and yet his proposal has still been tabled by the AcademicCouncil. He announced that the election for vacancies in the senate is currently takingplace in the Colleges. Votes are due by April 16. he urged members to help the processalong as much as possible. The Executive Committee has served as the nominatingcommittee for officers of the Senate. This year Walter Pratt will be added to representthe Law School. All senators, however, are free to submit nominations by the third weekof April, but should get the approval of nominees beforehand. finally, he announced thatthe last meeting for this year will be held on May 1.

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs: Committee Chair, John Yoder submitted a resolution formulated bythe committee supporting some concerns of the library administration, with changessuggested at the last Senate meeting (pulling apart questions concerning space andbudget). He moved the resolution as re-written and resubmitted. In the discussion,Margaret Porter underlined the need to make the administration aware of the need forfurther funding, especially of serials. Professor Joseph Blenkinsopp asked support for apetition being circulated not to have the Presidential dinner this year and put its costtoward serial purchases. The Committee resolution was unanimously approved (seeenclosed copy). The question was raised as to whom the resolution should go; it wasdecided to send it on to the Provost.

Administration: Committee Chair Frank Connolly took the podium to lead thediscussion on the Committee's final draft of a Discriminatory Harassment Policy. (Headded that the committee will come back at the next meeting with a recommendation forthe Administration to make a concerted and caring effort to raise this issue of culturaldiversity and mutual respect to the University community). He pointed out that thispresent report was made as a joint effort with the Committee appointed by the Provost,

2

and raised two issues: 1) the general principle involved; 2) why protect any selectedgroup?

Re 1) the report intends to address the problem of harassment in the dictionary meaningof the term -- an action intended to damage the victim. The policy is not aimed atoffensive speech in general. This is not included in the definition, and the committeeupheld the need to support the right to express opinions. The policy attempts to look attwo vital interests: a) peace on campus; b) and unfettered access by all to the benefits ofUniversity life. Penalties on dismissal of faculty members are not mentioned, thoughthey were contained in the original. It is felt that the administration already has amplepowers in this area, particularly concerning recalcitrant cases, e.g. salary etc. Finally, ittreats discriminatory harassment as more serious than "ordinary" harassment andmentions certain groups. Why should we? Because such groups tend to be subjected torepeated harassment, and its patterns are more damaging.

Connolly then asked guest Eileen Kolman, Dean of Freshman Year and chair of theProvost's committee, to comment on the policy. She pointed out that the Senate alreadyknew some of the history behind it. The Provost's committee had concluded last springthat Notre Dame needs a clear statement as to the kind of community we want. Nowritten statement had as yet been formulated. After much research and thought, thecommittee came up with a statement that prohibits discriminatory harassment whilepreserving First Amendment rights and academic freedom, and submitted it to theProvost. The issue was hen remanded to the Senate. Since December, when theAdministration Committee frrst took it up, the issue has received a lot more attention oncampus. This committee saw some shortcomings and set about addressing them. Aschair of the Provost's committee and speaking for other members, Dean Kolman feels thatthe amended policy expresses the best of what they had in mind and covers their originalgoals very well. She concluded by recommending it to the Senate's attention.

In the discussion that followed, Professor Morton Fuchs raised a technical question: hewas struck by comments concerning the protection of someone's right to express anopinion..? Does this constitute a loophole? Connolly responded that he thought someonecould. However, the policy deals fIrst with physical attacks and incitement to retaliation.The question of what constitutes intimidation took up most of the committee's time. Itwas decided 1) that it has to be harassment, and 2) one has to prove hostile intent andintent to intimidate based on the demeaning statements.

Professor Harvey Bender brought up some examples: what if in Math class a professorsays that in his experience women do not have good math skills and he expects that to betrue, or a biology professor states that minorities are deficient in one way or another?Connolly: you are showing limitations of the policy, unless you can show intent tointimidate persistently. Bender: In other words, if you area knowledgeable Philistine, it'sharassment; if not, it;s not..! Connolly: you have to prove intent. Bender: Even thoughthe person is equally devastated in either case? According to Professor Robert Vecchio,the First Amendment may protect you unless you use "fighting words." Therefore, anenforcement policy may be possible. Pratt responded that the committee alreadydiscussed this issue and will come up with a recommendation -- education is needed, notjust punitive statements. Vecchio: But if someone is creating an environment ofintimidation -- couldn't you use that argument? Connolly: the Civil Rights Act mandatesthat an employer may not allow an intimidating environment to persist.

3

Professor David O'Connor was bothered that the policy is so "example poor." Davidgave example of two roommates, one from a protected group, who get into a shovingmatch. One makes a racial remark; It seems like we have a clear case of harassment inone case, but not the other. Different remedies would ensue -- one is considered moreserious than the other. He wanted more specific examples.Connolly referred to pendingWisconsin court cases; some are pretty clear, and in one, the student even admits hisintent.

Professor Stephen Fallon thought the committee was casting a wide net. On p. 4 of thepolicy, rationale does not seem to be equal to page 2. Connolly argued that the definitionon p. 4 includes the one on p. 2. The issue is not common understanding but accordancewith law. For Professor Moody, the logic was not clear that discriminatory harassment issomehow separate. Connolly pointed to p. 22 of duLac, where harassment is alreadyprohibited. Sexual harassment is dealt with elsewhere. Professor Anand Pillay said thiswas not just a political issue; it was a social one as well. Consider the recent L.A. policebrutality case. There is a social context occurring here. Moody thought there was adouble social context, and wondered if Notre Dame should follow the pack. TheOshkosh case seemed covered by freedom of speech, but apparently was an issue becauseof the threat of violence. Supposing this were against a handicapped or rich person? Hewas not sure the category mitigates the action. Professor Gregory Sterling said wehaven't set the agenda in this matter. In an ideal world, there should be no distinctions,but this is not an ideal world. Should we not take a moral stance? Pratt responded thatwe were being asked to take more than a moral stance. Such problems should be dealtwith by more speech and education, not with sanctions. Connolly: you can't rebut withmore speech what is not solely a matter of speech. You must prove that the victim wasintimidated...Yoder didn't see anything about sanctions in this policy, but about conflictresolution. Connolly said the intent was to develop a policy; someone else would thendevelop sanctions. Kolman made two points: while supporting the proposed policy shedoubted we can make everyone happy. There is no way we could make a policy thatwould prevent certain statements. This policy is so narrow that the possibility ofsomeone being punished is very remote. She was not happy with that, but felt itimportant that the University come up with some position on this. Her committee lookedfust at racial harassment. Out of five faculty members on the committee, there was onlyone white male. The two students were both minorities. All were sensitive to theseissues. They are looked at differently by the majority For minorities there is more of anurgency -- this is not a pleasant environment for them. Connolly thought we were nowmore diverse. Can we not be generous? All we aspire to is to make this place more fair.Fallon: It does come down to the good guys versus the bad guys. I am horrified when Ihear such demeaning statements. But is this policy sufficiently clear? It's not a questiono generosity.

O'Connor returned to his concern that we are so example poor, and worried aboutexposing people to public embarassment for trivial cases. He was worried about theabuse of it. Professor William Tageson agreed with Yoder: the thrust of the committee'sapproach was conflict resolution, not public embarassment. That is why it was felt anombudsman should be available to try and reconcile all parties fust. Vecchio wanted tosuggest that this be made more explicit, since it was not clear as it stood. ProfessorClark Power said his Student Affairs Committee anticipated some of this and was callingfor a mediation board to address it. He was in sympathy with the problem of examplesand believed we need to address the culture at Notre Dame. There ought to be a way totalk it out But he was troubled by having to vote for or against this policy, and felt p. 2should be prefaced, because it does attempt to remediate creation of a hostileenvironment.

4

;Connolly agreed with others,~hought the policy was naked out of the context in which itwas presented, but would have no problem in submitting the whole thing to the AcademicCouncil. He would accept this as a friendly amendment. Professor Ellen Weaver somoved. Several suggestions were made for cuts in the contextual material, especiallysection #2, but Weaver wanted to leave it to the committee to reduce or summarize thematerial. Connolly accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. The Senate thenvoted to send the whole document to the Academic Council with Section #2 removed.

Benefits Committee: Professor Frank Bonello, chair, reported on three items: 1)follow-up on parental leaves. It was suggested the University come up with an ad hoccommittee to consider this issue, but it's being looked in a different area. 2)Transferability and cashability of TIAA accumulations: resolution submitted withchange to "became available." This enhances the flexibility of employees, and isconsistent with action taken re CREF. There would be no out-of-pocket expenses to theUniversity. The resolution was unanimously approved. (See enclosed copy.) 3)Compensation report -- given by Sheehan. In summary: salaries continue to improve,but benefits are lacking and library faculty low. Salaries are competitive, fringe benefitsimproving by lagging, percentage of women faculty of concern. Two areas are notcompetitive -- library faculty salaries, and business school in some areas. There will be asection also on retirees. Report has not been changed since 1984. Bonello: I move thata copy of this report be appended to the minutes, and sent to all faculty. Unanimouslyapproved. The Senate subsequently decided to mail the completed report to all membersof the Faculty. The chair congratulated Connolly on the success of hs efforts on thediscriminatory harassment policy, and the Senate agreed with its applause.

Student Affairs Committee: Clark Power, chair, had nothing to vote on, but at the nextmeeting will have a short proposal re discriminatory harassment mentioned previously, aswell as revisions of duLac (some way of incorporating students and faculty).

Governance Committee: John Yoder reported that senior faculty are being interviewedconcerning their special perspectives on governance.

There was no old Business.

Under New Business, Pratt presented on behalf of several law School colleagues aresolution on motherhood. Bonello indicated, in response to a question from the chair,that the Senate Benefits Committee had considered the resolution, and had decided not toendorse or pursue it. There was no second for Pratt's motion, and thus no discussion waspossible.

The Senate adjourned at 9: 15 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

William TagesonCo-Secretary

Members Present

5

BartlettBenderBentleyBlenkinsoppBonelloBunkerConnollyFallonFuchsHayesHemphillJordanLeightonMillerMoody

Members Absent

AntsaklisBandyopadhyayBorelliChangConwayCostiganDelaneyDespresEsch~cil' enhergHarmatiukHerro

O'ConnorParnellPilkintonPillayPorterPowerPowersPrattSheehanSporlederSterlingTagesonVecchioWeaverYoder

Jerez-FarranJohnson, C.Johnson, P.Lapsley1:0iRQar90MacKenzieMartinMcCarthyNicholsScullyWasowski

Members Excused

Falkenb@.rgLombardo

THE FACULTY SENATETHE JOURNALMAY 1, 1991

The chair, Prof. Paul Conway, called the final meeting of the 1990-91 academic yearto order at 7:38 p.m. in the auditorium of the Center for Continuing Education andcalled upon Prof. Mario Borelli to offer a prayer. Before turning to business at handConway asked each member to introduce him or herself and indicate whether he/shewas a continuing member, new or ending a term.

The chair next called upon Rev. David Burrell, C.S.C. to brief the Faculty Senate on thefinal report of the Faculty Committee on governance. This independent committee,composed of and elected by faculty members, had looked into the governance issueover the past nine months, following upon the senate's own investigation of theproceeding year. The senate had previously agreed to receive the committee's finalreport and use its right of agenda to pass it along to the Academic Council. Thecommittee's report is printed as appendix A of this journal.

Burrell, noting that his preferred committee title was the committee on facultyparticipation in university governance, broke down the complaints/problems into twocategories: structural and functional, resulting in the lack of a forum here forconcerns which affect academic life but are not technically academic, no forum toengage the whole community, and no accountability for administrators. Thecommittee built on the work done by the Senate to draft its recommendations:essentially, to make over the Academic Council into a working body to address issueswhich hitherto have gone unaddressed, in the report's words "to deliberate mattersaffecting the quality of academic life." In order to function better, the committeeproposed several alterations to the operations and composition of the Council.

In the senate's discussion, several members wished to be heard. Dr. Ellen Weaverasked how the committee saw the future role of the Faculty Senate, and Burrellresponded that the senate would have to decide its role for itself in light of thesuccess or failure of these recommendations. Prof. Frank Connolly wanted to knowwhat more members of the senate can do on this issue; aside from transmitting thereport to the council, Burrell thought Senators should "lobby" the members -of thecouncil and keep the issue alive. Borelli added that all faculty members should plan toattend a governance information program planned for Saturday, May 4. Prof. MortonFuchs, a member of the committee, complimented Burrell for his excellent work aschair and Borelli asked the senate for a round of applause for Burrell, to whichSenators responded heartily.

Prof. Clark Power wanted to know if Academic Council meetings would be open to thepublic; Burrell's answer was that his committee's recommendations were modest, didnot include that idea, but certainly looked forward to it. Pointing out that the modestyof these proposals can be both a virtue and a vice, Prof. David O'Connor asked Burrellto comment on their chances for passage and their chances for achieving their derivedlong-range goals. For Burrell their recommendations were a way for administratorsto work toward opening up governance, and improving the whole University. Fuchsagreed, saying it was a test for both faculty and administration; if the changes are

made and fail, it will be the faculty's fault. Burrell hoped that these changes wouldresult in collaboration and improvement. Prof. Joseph Blenkinsopp observed that thereal problem was never with the members of the council but with control of its agendaand the lack of consultation. Conway pointed out the difficulty of passing anything inthe Academic Council as currently structured; Burrell added that it took somethinglike 78°,10 of the faculty on the council to pass or defeat something if all the student andex-officio members voted as a bloc. Conway wondered if Burrell's committee wasstill in existence; he replied that the committee did not disband. Burrell closed hispresentation by thanking the committee and the senate for their work. Connollymoved to send the report to the Academic Council and Weaver seconded; Conwaypointed out that the senate had already agreed to do this, but the senate re-affirmedits desire to place the report on the agenda of the council at its first fall meeting byvoting unanimously for Connolly's motion.

The next item on the agenda was approval of the journals for the January, February,March and April meetings. Weaver proposed that Senators request of the Secretaryany changes in the minutes within ten days; otherwise the journals will be consideredapproved as printed. Borelli moved Weaver's suggestion and Despres seconded. Thesenate agreed.

The chair moved to the reports of standing committees. For Academic Affairs, chairJohn Yoder had nothing to report. For Administration, chair Frank Connolly reportedthat the discriminatory harassment policy approved by the Academic Council wasamended and weakened from the senate's version. For Benefits, chair Frank Bonellohad no report. For Student Affairs, chair Clark Power reported what might be calleda hortatory statement on discriminatory harassment, for his committee and theadministration committee jointly. As a motion from a standing committee, it wasautomatically seconded and opened for discussion. Prof. Leo Despres, speaking for themotion, thought the recently-passed discriminatory harassment policy did notproperly address concerns brought forward by students; this one would. O'Connor hadseveral reservations: the "mediation team" model was unclear to him and would needto be thoroughly fleshed out before gaining his support; and he did not believe theOffice of Residence Life was the avenue to pursue for multi-cultural education--that'san academic function best undertaken by the University's academic departments.Borelli thought the team was a problem too, but he also believed that Residence Lifemight be the proper place for multi-cultural education, not the departments. Despresexpressed support for the research study proposed, and that other concerns (likemediation and multi-cultural education ideas) be put aside while the study is going on.Prof. Anand Pillay pointed out that the senate on a prior occasion had voiced supportfor the mediation idea, and he wanted to know what had changed people's minds; if thesenate indeed did not want mediation, then perhaps the motion can be amended. Powerwas willing to cut his motion down to include only the research/study. Borelli thoughtthat mediation was needed--cases are occurring that are not covered by any existingpolicy, and people are being hurt; he saw mediation as a necessary outcome of theresearch. Prof. Philip Quinn said that coercion in several forms was an issue in anyproposed policy, so he would form some kind of mediation board. Weaver, referringto the ombudsman proposed in the senate's resolution and passed by the Academic

Council, thought this might develop into mediation over time; she also agreed withO'Connor's point on the responsibility of the academic departments for multi-culturaleducation.

Connolly asked Power to separate the research/study proposed from the other issues,vote on the main part, and send the others back to the committees. Power acceptedthis as a friendly amendment. The discussions continued on the proposal for aresearch/study of the culture of Notre Dame focusing on tensions due to gender, race,ethnicity and sexual preference.

Prof. Gregory Sterling wondered why only the anthropology, psychology and sociologydepartments would be involved with this study, since historically others likephilosophy and theology had moved more rapidly to eliminate certain discriminatorypractices. Power had no objection to adding those departments, and as a friendlyamendment this was done. Wasowski thought because the University espoused certainvalues, philosophical and theological concepts ought to be part of the study. Poweralso took as a friendly amendment that the Office of Student Affairs and ResidenceLife be included.

The question having been called without objection, the senate approved the motion asamended with one dissenting vote. The chair then questioned where the motion shouldbe sent. It was the sense of the senate that it should go to the Provost and to the VicePresident for Student Affairs. The approved motion is printed as appendix B of thisjou rna\.

The student affairs committee then presented a second motion, dealing with therevision of du Lac; students are not formally solicited for their input for the studenthandbook when it is revised every two years, nor are faculty. The motion did notneed a second, and discussion followed. Despres asked if the Academic Council votedon changes to du Lac; it does not. Power reported that the Vice President for StudentAffairs told him her office had sole jurisdiction over the revisions. Lombardosupported Power in this. Quinn, seeking to toughen the motion, offered alternativewording which Power accepted as a friendly amendment.

Despres having called the question, the senate voted to approve the motionunanimously, and send it to the Vice President for Student Affairs. This resolution isprinted as appendix C of this journal.

Next Conway, finishing his second consecutive year as chair, made his year-endreport. On the governance issue, the year began inauspiciously with a meeting inJune, 1990, with the three highest officials of the University; but it ended with thegovernance report which the senate received and sent to the Academic Council earlierthis evening. Over the past year the senate presented four proposals to the council;three were passed and one is pending. The proposal on tenure was to come up at theMay meeting, while those on primary caregiver, inclusive language anddiscriminatory harassment have already been acted upon favorably. The fact that theAdministration asked the senate to consider two especially difficult issues (inclusivelanguage and discriminatory harassment) was a positive sign for future cooperation.In that same vein, another sign of a cooperative attitude was the joint meeting of the

senate Student Affairs Committee with the Faculty Board in Control of Athletics todiscuss issues that have been raised in regard to student athletes, academics andathletic policies. The senate asserted its concerns about the University librariessystem, and asked the Administration to begin to take steps to remedy theseproblems. We urged the Administration to make some changes in TIANCREF policy,to come into line with what is now widely available. All in all, it has been a positiveyear, especially the relationship between the senate and the provost.

Conway was less certain that the relationship between the senate and individualmembers was as good. There has been, as usual, a great deal of talk about thesenate's ineffectiveness, but when an issue arises or a question occurs, for instanceon benefits, people react and ask, "What will the senate do?" So there is a senseamong many faculty members that the senate is indeed valuable. Conway thanked theExecutive Committee members for their hard work and asked for a round of applausefor them.

Since there was no further old business, the chair asked for new business. Yoder wasrecognized for the purposes of presenting a resolution commending Ellen Weaver uponher retirement for her years of service to the University and the senate. Having beenseconded, the senate unanimously approved with hearty applause. The resolution isprinted as appendix D of this journal.

Bonello reported that the Academic and Faculty Affairs Committee of the Board ofTrustees was to meet later in May. It will consider ROTC at Notre Dame, and theplace of scientific and engineering studies in the Catholic university. Despres askedhim about the TIANCREF resolutions the senate had passed; he replied that bothalternate investment vehicles and cashability are under study, and he may have moreto report in the fall. Fuchs asked the senate to give the chair Paul Conway a round ofapplause for his good work over the past two years.

At this point the 1990-91 senate adjourned, while the 1991-92 senate membersreconvened for the purpose of electing officers and committee chairs. Under senaterules, if the newly elected members are not present to begin their terms, the retiringmembers may remain for the vote. Since there was not a complete slate of nomineesfrom the nominating committee, nominations were opened from the floor. At the closeof nominations, the following had been nominated:

chair:

vice chair:

academic affairs:

administration:

student affairs:

ConnollyConway

Connolly

D. O'Connor

ConnollyPillay

PowerHarmatiuk

treasurer:

secretary:

benefits:

Antsaklis

TagesonLombardo

Sheehan

Because Conway had been nominated, vice-chair Weaver took over as chair for thenominating and elections process. Connolly declined the nomination as senate Chairand Administration Committee chair. The sense of the senate was that the Secretaryposition should continue to be held by two people and the Student Affairs Committeechair should also.

Despres moved the slate as nominated, Yoder seconded, and the senate agreed. TheSecretary was instructed to cast one vote to elect formally the entire slate. Thus theofficers for the 1991-92 Faculty Senate are:

chair:vice chair:co-secretary:

treasurer:

committee chairs

academic affairs:adm inistration:benefits:student affairs:

The senate adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter LombardoWilliam Tageson, co-secretaries

Paul ConwayFrank ConnollyBill TagesonPeter LombardoPanos Antsaklis

Dave O'ConnorAnand PillayRichard SheehanSandra HarmatiukClark Power

Attendees:

Affleck-GravesBentleyBlenkinsoppBonelloBorelliCashoreCollinsConnollyConwayDespresEschFuchsGoetzHemphillJordanKennyLeightonLombardoMcGlinnMoodyO'Connor, D.ParnellPillayPorterPower, C.Powers, J.PrattQuinnSauerSheehanSporlederSterlingTagesonVecchioWasowskiWeaverYoder

Absent:

AntsaklisBandyopadhyayBartlettBunkerCostiganDelaneyFalkenbergFallonGaryHarmatiukHayesHerroJenkinsJerez-FarranJohnson, C.L.Johnson, P.LabareeLapsleyLitzingerMacKenzieMartinMcCarthyMillerMillsNicholsO'Connor, E.PattisonPilkintonPrattScullySerianni

Excused:

BenderChang

Appendix A

FACULTY COMMITIEE ON GOVERNANCE REPORT8 April 1991

The Faculty Committee on Governance was elected by and from the entire Notre Damefaculty at the initiative of the Faculty Senate in the fall semester 1990. Those elected were:

Mario Borelli Albert H. LeMay *Jacqueline V. Brogan, Secretary William D. McGlinn, Vice ChairDavid B. Burrell, CSC, Chair Dennis W. MoranDolores W. Frese .* Jean A. PecMorton S. Fuchs Juan M. RiveraMohamed Gad-el-Hak John RoosPatrick D. Gaffney, CSC Donald E. SporlederTeresa Ghildarducci * Andrew 1. WeigertT.T.T. Too Le Robert W.Williamson

(* were unable to serve, and the Committee accepted their resignations; ** was physicallyindisposed and was replaced by Robert L. Kerby, recipient of the next largest number of votes).

The election culminated an inquiry into faculty participation in governance, whose latest phasebegan with the appointment of an ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate on UniversityGovernance in May 1989. The preliminary report of that committee (4 September 1989) led toa faculty-wide survey on issues germane to faculty participation in governance. The fmdingsof the survey proved decisive in determining to constitute a committee of the faculty, chargedto "examine the current structure of university governance and to make recommendations forchange that will enhance the governance of the university through increased facultyparticipation." The resulting Faculty Committee on Governance set about its work independentlyof the Faculty Senate, yet with the broad mandate of the university faculty. Its preoccupationsreflect the faculty-wide canvass as well as the concerns of the 1984 North Central Associationaccreditation report:

The evaluation team expresses some concern about the structure and process ofgovernance with the University -- especially with respect to the role of faculty inthe decision making of academic and faculty personnel matters.

In addition, the recruitment of outstanding faculty for endowed professorships, andthe increasing emphasis on research and graduate programs, should result inheightened expectations of faculty participation in important areas of universitygovernance.

The 1974 team report (page 15) noted that 'faculty participation and influence arestrongest at the department and College levels.' This still seems to be the caset<Xiay. The administration seems to be the dominant force in some areas oftraditional faculty responsibility, such as the rank and tenure processes. Theinvolvement of faculty in all University governance matters seems to be somewhatlimited.

Appendix A (cont.)

As our committee set about its task, we surveyed various topics and concentrated onspecific amendments to the structure of the Academic Council. For it was our consideredjudgment, in the wake of the recent year and a half of discussion of these matters, that thetransformation of the council into a truly collegial body would provide the milieu in whichfaculty and administration could work together with student representation to improve theacademic environment of the University. For one way to read the North Central concerns is tonote that the appropriate division of labor between administration and faculty, to which thePreamble of the Academic Articles alludes, has been so narrowly interpreted that the AcademicCouncil has limited its deliberations and action to matters quite technical, and failed to attend tothose qu~stions which shape the environment in which we live and work, giving it its specialcharact~r: the relations between teaching and research, and between residential life and learning;the Catholic ethos and character of the University. All such matters, it seems, have beenpresumed to be within the scope of the administration and not of the faculty or students, with theonly fora for discussion between these groups being the brief semi-annual meetings of therespective committees of the Board of Trustees.

It is clear that we need to make the Academic Council a more representative deliberatingbody of the University. Our committee interviewed colleagues who had indicated a desire tospeak with us, as well as those whom we selected. Their counsel helped us to determine howwe should propose transforming the council. These conversations also confrrmed our resolve thatsomething needed to be done: the predicted concerns of the North Central report are now withus, in the persons of faculty recruited as well as esteemed faculty of long-standing. IT thisUniversity is to fulfill its stated expectations, it will need to call upon the expertise of its facultyby eliciting their greater involvement in the common good of a learning environment. Nothingshort of a decisive revision of the council can, however, invoke that participation, since the ethoshas been for too long one in which the administration has reserved these larger questions to itself,and then wondered why so few faculty were concerned about them.

Our proposals are modest, yet potentially far-reaching. We propose an enhancedAcademic Council which will employ a committee structure to do its work, and which will beempowered to undertake inquiries into the academic quality of university life and practices. Weanticipate that this work will involve administrators, faculty and students, and can reasonablyhope that the experience of such collaborative efforts will develop habits of interaction currentlyabsent from Notre Dame. In short, our proposal offers us a way of becoming the university weaspire to become, and envisages the decade of the nineties to be one in which we pledgeourselves to the formation of mutual responsibility for this University. This proposal intends toimplement the changes of 1967 (when Notre Dame's Board of Trustees was expanded to includelaity) in the very direction in which they were intended: the participation of the corporate bodyof the University in its shared destiny.

The committee's proposed amendments to the Academic Articles are attached

APpendix~cont. )

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO 1HE~CADEMICCOUNCIL

Academic Articles; Article IV, Section 3, Subsection (a) The Academic Council

(faculty Handbook 1990, p. 19; changes in bold type)

The Academic Council consists of the President, who chairs the Council; the Provost; theExecutive Vice-President; the Vice President and Associate Provost; the Vice President for

.Student Affairs; the Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research; The Chairperson ofthe Faculty Senate; the Deans of the Colleges; The Dean of the Law School; the Dean of theFreshman Year of Studies; the Director of University Libraries; one residence hallrector selected by and from the rectors, and 28 elected faculty members....

The faculty members are elected by and from the faculty of the respective Collegesand the Law School, as well as the Library Faculty and the Special Professional Faculty, innumbers proportional to the size of the faculty involved, except that each category offaculty shall elect at least one member. Elections shall begin with a poll of thefaculty group, and proceed in a step-wise process to aim for fairrepresentation. Faculty members are elected, and may be reelected, for a term of threeyears, in such a manner that approximately one-third of the elected membership iselected each year.

The principal functions of the Council are to deliberate matters affecting thequality of academic life, to determine general academic policies and regulations oftheUniversity; .... The decisions of the Council are by majority vote and are subject to the­approval of the President.

The Council shall structure itself to form standing committees forongoing business and select committees for ad hoc inquiries. Thesecommittees are chaired by a member of the Council and composed ofCouncil members. Committees have the ·right of agenda.

The Council meets at least 6 times during the academic year. RobertsRules of Order, as amended by the bylaws of the Council, shall governdebate. The meetings are called by the President ...

The Council has an Executive Committee composed of the Provost, who chairs theCommittee, the 'lice President 8Bd Assoeiate Prevost, The Chairperson of the FacultySenate, five members elected from the elected membership and two memberselected from the ex-officio membership.

An agenda shall be circulated to the faculty well in advance of themeeting, and minutes published as soon as possible after each meeting.

***************Article IV, Section 2/Meetings

[paragraph 3]

Ex officio members of the Academic Council and of the College Councils may, ifnecessary, be represented at meetings by their deputies. Elected members may berepresented by elected alternates. In both cases, substitutes have speaking and votingprivileges.

Appendix B

DISCRIMINATORY HARASSMENT

WHEREAS the Discriminatory Harassment Policy approved by theFaculty Senate outlaws the extremes of intimidation but fails toaddress the more frequent and ambiguous cases.

WHEREAS such cases are often products of the local culture andare not easily or properly remedied through disciplinary policy:

BE IT RESOLVED:

That the Office of Student Affairs and Residence Life withconsultation from the anthropology, psychology, sociology,philosophy and theology departments and the support of thestudents undertake a study of the culture at Notre Dame focusing ontensions due to gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual preference.

AppendixC

WHEREAS a revision of dY~ will soon be undertaken andmindful that d1l~ has been changed in the past without meaningfulconsultation with students or faculty.

BE IT RESOLYED THAT the Faculty Senate urge the VicePresident for Student Affairs to establish a formal mechanism forsoliciting student and faculty opinion in drafting revisions of du.~

AppendixD

BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate acknowledge withgratitude the exceptional services of our colleague Dr. F. EllenWeaver: teacher, departmental administrator, researcher. Dr.Weaver has earned distinction in the study of the renewal movementin French Catholicism which arose around the center of Port Royal;her expertise covers the history of institutions, of ideas, andespecially of liturgy and piety. In the Senate she has served ourcommunity in numerous roles, occupying the Senate chair for twoyears, including our twentieth anniversary year. We are sorry tolose Ellen and Jean to our community, yet happy and a bit jealous towish them Godspeed as they take their word processors and theircats along for their many well-earned years of independent study inParis.