EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Present: Bryant, Prochaska-Cue, Sawyer, Scheideler, Siekman, Spann, Whitt, Wolf
Absent: DMagno, Fuller, King, Logan-Peters, Miller
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2002
Location: Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace
1.0 Call to Order
Bryant called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Upcoming Meeting with Vice Chancellor Jackson
Bryant reported that the committee would be meeting with Vice Chancellor Jackson on January 16th to discuss the Pepsi Fund. He noted that the committee would like to get more specific information and express concerns regarding the fund. He stated that the committee would also like to get an update on parking and, in particular, information regarding the proposed garage at 14th and Avery Streets.
2.2 Stan Campbell, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Director, Campus Recreation
Bryant stated that he would like to invite Campbell to meet with the Executive Committee regarding the long range plans of campus recreation. He noted that these plans could affect surface parking on campus. Griffin stated that she would schedule Campbell to meet with the committee.
2.3 Martin Luther King Breakfast
Bryant reported that a few tickets were still available for the Martin Luther King breakfast scheduled for Friday, January 18th at 7:30 a.m.
2.4 Sample Letter of Offer for Specific Term Appointments
Bryant distributed copies of the sample letter of offer recommended by the Office of Academic Affairs. The committee felt that the letter needed some revisions and agreed that they should discuss it with SVCAA Edwards at an upcoming meeting.
2.5 Final Report on the Study on Domestic Partner Benefits
Bryant reported that he has received a copy of the final report on the study of domestic partner benefits. He stated that a copy would be sent to members of the Executive Committee.
2.6 Report on Faculty Aged 55 Years and Older
Bryant announced that he received a report from John Benson, Director, Institutional Research & Planning, on faculty members 55 years and older. He noted that the report only lists the age and title of faculty within specific departments. He stated that no names or salary figures were provided. Sawyer pointed out that the report does not provide the information requested by the Executive Committee. He stated that the committee asked to see what percentage of increase older faculty received this year. He noted that this information could be provided without revealing names. Bryant stated that he would ask for the information.
3.0 Approval of 12/12/01Minutes
The committee approved the minutes as amended.
4.0 Unfinished Business
4.1 Budget Reductions and Faculty Salary Increases
Wolf suggested that the statement written by the Executive Committee regarding the use of faculty salary increases be sent to all faculty members. The committee agreed that it is premature to give up salary increases without knowing what budget cuts are being proposed. Some committee members pointed out that the effect of denying salary increases would have longer detrimental impacts than cutting programs. It was noted that once the budget situation becomes more stable, it could be possible to reinstate programs. The committee discussed whether the entire faculty body should be sent a ballot to vote on this issue.
4.2 Quality Indicators
Bryant distributed copies of the PowerPoint presentation given to the Board of Regents on the quality indicators. He noted that a major concern with the indicators is the absence of any inputs. He stated that resources must be considered if the indicators are going to be used to make decisions that affect departments. Sawyer pointed out that if one of the outcomes of the indicators is to show efficiency, it is necessary to show the relationship between input and output. Bryant noted that some of the indicators depend on a fully staffed institution. He pointed out that there are no measures of process and input. Scheideler stated that listing federal research dollars expended as an indicator lets the federal government set the research agenda at the university. She stated that this disregards state and local grants which contribute more money to the university than federal research money. She pointed out that federal grants can direct efforts away from what the state needs. She felt further clarification is needed under this section of the indicators. Prochaska Cue questioned how quality of direct interactions was going to be measured. She noted that the indicators measure only commercial impacts and do not measure impact on people. Bryant stated that there is no recognition in the indicators of extra programs being conducted by faculty. The committee agreed to discuss their concerns with SVCAA Edwards. Wolf suggested that we ask for specific plans on how the campus discussion of the indicators will be handled.
4.3 Degree Grade Rosters on Athletes
The committee discussed whether students who were not athletes received adequate information on their status in a class during the semester. Scheideler suggested that the Grading and Examinations Committee be charged with examining whether students are being equitably treated in being informed of their standing in classes.
5.0 New Business
5.1 OpportunityHires
Bryant stated that concern over the opportunity hires arose with an opinion column written by Senator Foley in the local paper. He noted that Foley stated that opportunity hires were unfair. Sawyer pointed out that spousal hires can cause more of a problem for departments than opportunity hires. Scheideler pointed out that spousal hires are much different from opportunity hires which could be used to expand the diversity of the campus. Wolf stated that he is surprised at the silence of administration to support the policy they created. Whitt stated that he is unsure of the current opportunity hire policy, but in the past it has included the hiring of white males. Griffin pointed out that statistical information on the opportunity hires would be helpful. Bryant stated that he is more concerned with faculty members being excluded from interviewing and participating in the hiring of a new faculty member. He pointed out that the opportunity hire is not a Senate policy. He stated that more information from administration on the policy would be helpful. Bryant stated that he would contact the Chancellor on this issue.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, January 16th at 3:00 p.m., 201 Canfield Administration Building. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator, and James King, Secretary.
