FACULTYCOUNCIL
December 8, 2016
MINUTES
Present:
Thomas R. Baechle,Michael A. Belshan, Thomas P. Berry, Charles B. Braymen, Laura C. Bruce, Murray J. Casey, Hardeep K. Chehal, Thomas F. Coffey, Elizabeth F. Cooke, C. Timothy Dickel, William M. Duckworth, Fidel Fajardo-Acosta, William R. Hamilton, Gary K. Leak, Brian W. Loggie, George W. McNary, Edward A. Morse, Kelly K. Nystrom, Victor A. Padrón, Meghan R. Potthoff, M. Ross Romero, S.J., Jeanne A. Schuler, Janet E. Seger, Kristina A. Simeone, Ronald A. Simkins, Cindy S. Slone, D. David Smith, Michaela M. White, Vivian Zhuang
Excused:
Samuel C. Augustine (proxy, Jeffrey North), A. Barron Breland (proxy, Matthew K. Averett), Lydia R. Cooper (proxy, Samantha M. Senda-Cook), Kristin Drescher (proxy, Patrick C. Swanson), Erika L. Kirby (proxy, George F. McHendry),Sandor Lovas (proxy, Marlene K. Wilken),Barbara J. O’Kane (proxy, Shikha Tarang),Thomas E. Pisarri (proxy, Diane M. Cullen), Lori B. Rubarth (Catherina A. Carrico), Steven Sieberson (proxy, Daniel L. Real)
Absent:
Naser Z. Alsharif, Juan Asensio, Casey D. Beran,D. Roselyn Cerutis, Kimberly A. Galt,Annie E. Knierim, Kalyana C. Nandipati, Larry Siref, Michel Wagner
1. Call to Order:
Prof. Edward A. Morse called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.;to speed the meeting up there was no reflection.
2. Approval of the Agenda for the Present Meeting:
Prof. Morse asked if there were any changed to the agenda as distributed. It was moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
3. Approval of the Minutes of the Faculty Council Meeting of November 10, 2016:
Prof. Morse noted that the minutes for the meeting of November 10 had been distributed. He asked if there was a motion to approve as distributed. It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes as distributed. There being no corrections offered, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
4. Review of the Minutes of the Academic Council Meeting of November 17, 2016:
The minutes were not available.
5. Review of the Minutes of the Academic Administrators’ Council:
No minutes were available. Dr. Coffey said that he had charted out the minutes of this Academic Administrators’ Council (also meeting under the name of Council of Deans) that had been received by the Academic and Faculty Councils and it would appear that several sets of minutes are yet unaccounted for. It was reiterated that there needs to be a follow-up on the locating the missing documents, as outlined in the previous month’s minutes.
6. Election of Secretary of the Faculty Council for Second Semester:
Prof. Morse said that there is a need to elect a Secretary of the Faculty Council for the second semester. Dr. Coffey will be stepping down from that position as he will not be able to carry out the duties of the position during that time period. The person elected to this position will become the representative of his or her College or School to the Executive Committee of the Academic Council, thus possibly displacing the representative from that College or School elected in August. It was moved and seconded to nominate Dr. Charles B. Braymen as Secretary of the Faculty Council for second semester. There were no other nominations. There being no objections, Dr. Braymen was elected by general consent.
7. Election of Representative to Executive Committee from Arts and Sciences:
Prof. Morse stated that Dr. Coffey the election resulted in a vacancy for the position of representative from the College of Arts and Sciences to the Executive Committee of the Academic Council. It was moved and seconded to nominate Dr. Jeanne A. Schuler. There were no other nominations. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
8. Changes to Faculty Handbook and University Statutes
Motion on a Representative from the GraduateSchool to the Faculty Council
A motion proposal was received from Dr. Cindy L. Costanzo to give the graduate school one representative on the Faculty Council and consequently on the Academic Council. The proposal would change the wording Article III, Section 2.C.1 of the University Statues as follows:
C. Faculty Council 1. Membership
One faculty representative shall be elected for every fifteen, or major
fraction thereof, of the full-time teaching and research faculty from each College or School of the University, exclusive of Deans, Associate Deans, and Assistant Deans. However, no College or School shall have fewer than two representatives on the Council, except the Graduate School which shall have one representativeand the College of Professional Studies and Summer Sessions which, having no distinct faculty, is not representeddo not have separate faculties. Such representatives shall be elected by secret ballot by the full-time teaching and research faculty of each School or College exclusive of officers of academic administration from the full-time teaching and research faculty of the particular College or School. These elections shall be held for each School or College during the month of March or April prior to the beginning of the term of office of the new members. These elections shall be conducted by the Committee on Committees. At least half of such representatives shall be tenured. Representatives shall serve staggered three-year terms. An elected member may serve two consecutive terms for a total of six years of service. After this time the member is ineligible for election to the Council for a period of one term or three years. The term of office shall begin on August 20 following the spring elections.
Questions were raised as to whether there were sufficient numbers of faculty members in the GraduateSchool to fall within the general representative formula of one representative for every fifteen faculty members or major fraction thereof. Questions were also raised on how many of the faculty members who are counted as members of the GraduateSchool really had their primary appointment in an area other than the GraduateSchool. A question was raised about whether some faculty members now held two primary appointments. It was generally agreed that the number, if not hovering around fifteen at least falls within the guideline of a major fraction of fifteen. It was moved and seconded to recommend the passage of the wording relative to the creation of a representative to the Faculty Council from the GraduateSchool. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Motion on Recognizing Mission Involvement in the Rank and Tenure Process
A motion was brought forward from the University Committee on Rank and Tenure (UCRT) to amend Article III.G.9.a.i of the Faculty Handbook. The wording of the motion from the UCRT, as amended by the Committee on Faculty Handbook and University Statutes (CFHUS) in consultation with a representative of the UCRT, follows, with the proposed addition of wording underlined:
“A candidate for conferral of tenure or for promotion in rank is encouraged to include in his/her dossier how the candidate has contributed to the mission of the University, and of his/her school or college where applicable, how the mission informs his/her teaching, scholarship, and service (and clinical work, where applicable), and how the candidate’s students encounter the mission infused in their experiences with the candidate. Dossiers of candidates for tenure or for promotion in rank shall consist of digital copies in appropriate format (e.g., PDFs for documents, URLs for websites of….”
It was explained that the original impetus for adding mission came from the Partners in Mission Committee (PiM). This Committee had consulted with the UCRT and also issued another possible wording for inclusion of a mechanism for recognizing work that addresses the mission of the University. Faced with various versions relative to adding language of this nature to the Faculty Handbook, the CFHUS appointed a three-person task force to work with PiM. Several meetings were held with Fr. Hauser and one meeting with the full PiM Body. In the final meeting of the CFHUS taskforce and the PiM Committee, it was agreed to strike the final clause of the motion, as generally difficult to implement and also to insert “and/or” between the various categories, so as to allow faculty to show where they were able to contribute significantly to the mission without feeling constrained to add such demonstrations where they were either difficult or impossible to demonstrate due to their unique assignments. During the process, some expressed a desire for across-the-board conformity in the presentations of mission and others believed that this was not possible due to the variety of the unique work being carried out at the University. A question was raised as to what was meant by mission; it was noted that this varies by individual; it was also noted that the PiM did not wish to have a construct on mission that would make adherence to a particular interpretation of mission a hammer to be held over the heads of faculty members. Questions of presentation were raised, and it was moved and seconded to amend the proposed wording by changing the words “and” to “and/or”, by changing the “and” in front of service to “or”, by removing the parentheses, and by eliminating the words “and how the candidate’s students encounter the mission infused in their experiences with the candidate.” The motion to amend passed by unanimous voice vote, resulting in the following wording.
“A candidate for conferral of tenure or for promotion in rank is encouraged to include in his/her dossier how the candidate has contributed to the mission of the University, and/or of his/her school or college where applicable, and/or how the mission informs his/her teaching, scholarship, or service and/or clinical work, where applicable.
The amended motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
9. Committee Reports:
Campus Planning Committee
Questions were raised about the report submitted by Mr. John L. Wilhelm in November. Mr. Wilhelm will be asked to appear at the Academic Council meeting in December. If there are any particular questions, they can be submitted to Prof. George McNary, Secretary of the Academic Council, so that they can be forwarded to Mr. Wilhelm ahead of the meeting. It was noted that one issue involved the bicycle path being constructed along Burt Street. It was also noted that the Council could tour the new ClinicalBuilding that is nearing completion off Cumming Street.
Financial Advisory Committee
The report from Mr. Daniel E. Burkey has not yet been received.
Faculty Dismissals Committee
The report from Dr. D. Roselyn Cerutis was distributed with the agenda. There were no questions.
10. Review of Policies by Faculty Council:
Prof Morse said that this matter will be taken up at the Academic Council meeting. Questions can be raised at that time. The office of the General Counsel has reacted positively to addressing issues of academic freedom raised earlier in regard to several policies.
11. Report of the President’s Council
Prof. Morse said that he was unable to attend the last meeting due to prior commitments.
12. Resolutions from Previous Year
A motion was made at the previous meeting and distributed with the agenda. This item was not covered due to a lack of time.
13. Higher Learning Commission Update
Links to the various criteria were distributed with the agenda for the meeting. The item was not covered due to a lack of time.
a. Status of Higher Learning Committee Report
Criterion 1 PDF/ Criterion 1 Link
/ Criterion 1. Mission
Criterion 2 PDF
/ Criterion 2 Link / Criterion 2. Integrity, Ethical and Responsible Conduct
Criterion 3 PDF
/ Criterion 3 Link / Criterion 3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources and Support
Criterion 4 PDF
/ Criterion 4 Link / Criterion 4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement
Criterion 5 PDF
/ Criterion 5 Link / Criterion 5. Resources, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness
b. Motion
A motion was distributed with the agenda. This item was not covered due to a lack of time.
14. Educational Advisory Board
Mr. John Tannous from the Educational Advisory Board (EAB) was present at the meeting. He had made a presentation in conjunction with the StrategicPlanningTown Hall prior to the Faculty Council Meeting. Several Faculty Council members were able to attend this presentation. He said that he would answer questions on various aspects of the work of the EAB, whether they had to do with what he had said at the earlier meeting or were questions about other aspects of his organization. He began by thanking the group for inviting him to the Council meeting. He said that he had spoken earlier with Dr. Mary E. Chase and Fr. Daniel S. Hendrickson, S.J. about the challenges and opportunities that are out there for academic institutions. One area of interest is where growth might occur for aninstitution; generally, growth may be expected in non-traditional areas and among first-generation college students. A question was raised about the number of such first generation families; he said that they represent a considerable number of potential students moving forward into the near future. A question was raised about there being issues and having programs in place to help nurture these first-generation students who come to an institution like Creighton; he said that there are institutions that have both set programs and mechanisms in place for when these students come to the institution and programs to help attract them to the institution; one; there are bridge programs that have been developed to develop this type of a cohort of students, especially those who show signs of being good candidates to profit from the education at the institution; some of this involve bridge programs, summer programs and scholarships. A question was raised about what other institutions have done; he said that scholarships could be made available and that some institutions have provided for this; he cited Rutgers University as one institution that has moved down even to the eighth grade level in approaching students and cultivating relationships with the parent institution; he noted their development of partnerships with local schools as well as schools beyond the local level. A question was raised about the needed percentage of tuition support that would represent a good target to support suchprograms in terms of numbers, where it is likely that a gap would need to be filled between tuition cost and ability to pay; he said that such scholarshipstend not to be full rides but must be enough to motivate a student. A question was raised as to what would be necessary to fill the gap between what we now provide in support and what would be needed; he said he did not know this, but he added that, in his opinion, the vast majority of the growth of incoming students will naturally flow from first generation groups; he also said that there can be some special challenges for these students but not necessarily huge challenges. A question was raised about administrative costs and costs that are driving up the price of an education; he said that one source of information on this is the Delta Cost Study; he said the last version of this study came out in 2014. It was noted that the ratio of staff to faculty has gone up especially at large research universities; he said that this is in part due to the need for various types of advisors, the need for more career support for students, and other reasons as well; he said there were dozens of reasons for the rise in cost at academic institutions; he said that we are serving a group that comes with more needs and more challenging circumstances; he added that many parents think that college should lead to a job and that this leads, for example, to funding career centers on campus; he said that people expect more from the mission of universities as well as wanting the education to lead to a good job. He mentioned that there is also the need for government compliance; he said that Vanderbilt University claimed that they spent some 400 million dollars on compliance; however, he added that they included in this figure much that was related to their hospital; he said that University of California - Berkeley reported that they have now have five times as many staff related to Clery Act and Title IX issues than they did a decade ago; in addition to this aspect, there are more and more areas regarding finances that must be reported in greater detail; all of this has required more staff. He said that the need to grow revenue has also required that there be more people engaged in launching more programs that generate more income; this, in turn, requires staff to run the new programs. He said that, in stepping back from particulars, the question should be: are we making more money from the staff that has been engaged? He said that in many cases the staff increases are a symptom more than a cause of the cost increase. He said that we know that the number of staff has gone up and may have doubled since 1989; however, he said that some have claimed that, if you index by enrollment, it may not have gone up on a per capita analysis. He said that reporting systems are not sophisticated enough to answer the kinds of questions that are brought up in discussions of cost at academic institutions.