ࡱ> ac` @ Mbjbj)) "lKzKzDE=(   8D4xD("-2@,,,,,,,$T.R0,OOO,,[[[O,[O,[[-*|+ b3 *,,0"-*H1xH1$+((H1+08"[Zv,,(( d((  Faculty Council Retreat 8.24.2007 Minutes Nick Lash reporting Attending: Harvey Boller, Heather Cannon, Tony Cordoza, Bill Cuthbertson, Jawed Fareed, Janis Fine, Marc Hayford, Linda Heath, Paul Jay, Nick Lash Gerry McDonald, David Posner, Gordon Ramsey, Henry Rose, Bill Schmidt, Allen Shoenberger, Peter Schraeder, and David Schweikart Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by the Faculty Council Chair, Gerard McDonald, at 10:24 AM. Invocation: Janis Fine offered a prayer in remembrance of Anna Lowe, former FC member, and Peter Whalley, two faculty members, who recently passed away. Chairs Report: Gerry McDonald pointed out hat Nick Lash was filling in for Alanah Fitch, as recording secretary, at the retreat. Moreover, Alanah requested clerical, or secretarial, help in the future. The Provost, Christine Wiseman may provide such assistance. The question of confidentiality arose, if a secretary were present at FC meetings, but Allen Shoenberger pointed out that at LUC, there were secretaries that could be trusted to maintain confidentiality. FC members introduced themselves. Shared Governance: A list of committee memberships on both the FC and the UPCs was circulated. The newly appointed Provost, Dr. Christine Wiseman requested information on the shared governance structure at including FCs function. In response, Peter Schraeder wrote a brief summary of the evolution of shared governance at since 2001, including the shortcomings of the 2003 Provisional Shared Governance Charter, the most noteworthy changes associated with the 2007 revised Shared Governance Charter, and the current expectations of the faculty, staff, and students as concerns that revised charter. (See attachment below.) Schraeder also summarized some of the procedural issues that have emerged in various UPC discussions, including (1) whether or not UPCs simply dispose submitted issues or can propose new issues (FC supports the latter); (2) should UPC members represent the interests of their constituency in UPC discussions, while keeping in mind what is best for LUC ( FC says yes); and (3) to what degree should the UPCs share information prior to reporting final results (FC notes that information disclosure/sharing should occur at all points of the discussion process). Administrators are perceived as simply wanting UPCs to quickly dispose of issues rather than proposing new issues, but Peter suggested that the Faculty Affairs UPC wanted a more proactive role. A conflict for members of the faculty serving on the UPCs was to balance their own best judgment as to what was optimal for LUC versus representing the interests of their constituency. This issue has yet to be completely resolved. Regarding information disclosure, questions arise as whether it was sufficient to report final results or whether a more extensive explanation of the underlying discussion was warranted. The Role of UPCs and FC Harvey Boller brought up the issue of how UPCs and FC would at times send each other draft proposals. At times. FC would make a suggestion but FAUPC would return it requesting more detail. Gerry pointed out that if the UPC does not like a proposal from FC, it presumably could sit on it, i.e., use a pocket veto. Allen S. stated that some proposals to UPCs were very well written and well focused, and these tend to be easily handled. However, more broadly written proposals sometimes require additional research before they can be handled. It was mentioned that at times faculty are reluctant to undertake the research necessary to better present a proposal if they have reason to believe that, regardless of their efforts, the administration has already decided to reject it It was suggested that even if administration is expected to be opposed to an idea, FC should continue to propose it in any case. David Schweikart recommended surveying faculty first. It was pointed out that when the current administration first took office, it entered into a crisis situation and thus was forced to make tough decisions unilaterally. Perhaps the administration is uncomfortable giving up some of its decision-making authority to FC. The hope was raised that the facultys role in shared governance would increase with Christine Wiseman as Provost. The opinion was offered that because Fr. Garanzini desires a greater role for shared governance, administrators have become more receptive to this notion. David S stated that presumably all policy decision changes go through the UCC. But what if it does not, that is, what if the administration makes a unilateral decision? What is the recourse? Peter S questioned how assertive are UPCs going to be. Much discussion followed regarding issues for Faculty Affairs UPCs. Teaching Loads: On the issue of sabbaticals, Jawed F. pointed out that sabbaticals are almost a non-issue at LUMC as they are rare. Walter pointed that it is difficult for faculty to take leaves as their practice would decline. Allen S. referred to the earlier written Catania Report which suggested that while faculty teaching loads may not be reduced, teaching schedules could be adjusted so that there would be some terms with heavy teaching loads and others with light loads so that faculty could focus on research in those periods. Tony C. pointed out, however, that there are practical limits as to how heavy a teaching load could be managed in a term. Gerry pointed out that Fr. Garanzini is opposed to reducing teaching loads for those doing engaged in heavy or important service activities. The Role of the FC: Discussion revolved regarding the role of FC. The question arose: is Faculty Affairs UPC is more powerful than FC? It was suggested by Tony C that FC had limited power. Occasionally, however, FC met with the President, the Provost and Board. Janis F. pointed out that FC was created in 1964 as the voice of the faculty. It was proposed that the Provost attend some FC meetings. David S. pointed out the importance for FC members to keep their constituents informed of the issues being discussed by FC. Faculty Handbook: Paul Jay presented a detailed discussion of the work of his committee on the Faculty Handbook. Pauls committee has been working on the Faculty Handbook for four years and they have finally completed a draft that is being sent tomorrow to the UCC and administration and faculty committees for review and possible revisions. The draft will also be sent to the Provost and the CEO of LUMC. Paul expected some collaborative effort with the FAUPC, the FC, and the administration. Jawed suggested that Paul also meet with the LUMCs new CEO. In the spring, the committee added two faculty members and also Isiaah Crawford, Dean of A & S, and that the faculty and administration worked well together. The biggest point of contention dealt with the Grievance and Appeals procedure, and it was resolved that there is no difference between appeals and grievances. This is the procedure at other universities Although the Faculty Handbook Committee, having met its charge, is now being disbanded, Paul is willing to meet with interested parties for discussion and answering questions. The FC applauded Paul for his excellent contribution to a most important task. Some of the features of the proposed new Faculty Handbook. There were changes in shared governance and the addition of new committees. The implementation of regularizing future revisions to the Faculty Handbook will be handled by the FAUPC. The Faculty Appeals committee should be elected. It could be a committee of the FC. Disciplinary actions against faculty: Fitness for Duty: Faculty are expected to come to work without being under the influence of alcohol or chemically dependent. LUC discourages consensual relations between faculty and students. There is a need for some new regulations Paul pointed out that the new Faculty Handbook, in contrast to past handbooks, will be a living document. That is, it will be on the webpage, in a PDF and Word document, and all changes will be incorporated into it. This is in sharp contrast to the current system where the handbook exists in hard copy, and numerous changes can be found on the web in various places. Hence, the new handbook appearing on the web will incorporate all changes. Dean Evaluations by FC: Paul raised the issue of the tri-annual dean evaluations which apparently are universally disliked by the deans. They find the evaluation instrument to be seriously flawed. Tony C. pointed out that the one-size fits all current form of the evaluations is inappropriate for colleges that vary significantly in size. For example, in the very large college, few faculty know the dean. Nick L. stated that all evaluation instruments have their weaknesses, but that nonetheless, they could convey whether or not the faculty feel the dean is performing well. Bill S. however pointed out the problem of confidentiality. Unlike other evaluations, such as administration evaluations of faculty or faculty teaching loads, the dean evaluations are seen by the FC and a summary is passed onto the evaluating faculty. It was decided that this issue requires more discussion. David Schweikart presented the issue of Sabbatical leaves. David had undertaken a survey of sabbatical policies of peer universities and found that virtually all had more generous policies. (See Attachments: Peer Aspirational and SabPolSum.) The Faculty Affairs UPC overwhelmingly passed a recommendation that LUC, including LUMC, institute a regular sabbatical policy with three features: Every tenured faculty member with a bona fie research proposal is eligible for a non-competitive research leave every seven years. This leave should include the option of taking a full year off at half pay or half year off at full pay. The current system of competitive leaves should remain in place. One is eligible to apply if it has been at least three years since one has received a paid university leave. Faculty who receive outside funding, but less than their full salary should be able to apply for additional funding at any time. David pointed out that, during the last three years, 16 faculty leaves were granted to the 358 faculty members at the Lakeside campuses. If instead, a sabbatical policy were in place so that faculty members were eligible every seven years, then, 51 faculty members, or three times as many, would have had leaves. (See Attachment: LoyLeaveData.) In his discussion with Christine Wiseman, she requested a white paper that would answer questions such as: i) How would the sabbatical policy be phased in? ii) Who should decide to whom the sabbatical should be given? The chair? The Dean? A committee? David would like a white paper from FC that could be sent to FAUPC. David Posner volunteered to draft such a white paper. Linda Heath presented the activities of the Womens Commission. Her committees goal was to see that the ad hoc commission on gender equitys recommendations would be implemented. To this end, they would monitor salaries and quarterly reports. So far, her Commission has two volunteers, both women. She would like to have some men also serving on the commission. Tony C. raised the issue that if a woman were to deliver a baby just before the semester starts, shed have to report to work in only six weeks. Linda pointed out that the Committees goal was not to undertake new policies but simply implement the Reports suggestions, such as quarterly reports, and monitor the results. Gerry asked if there were any necessary changes in the committee structure. Nick pointed out that CAPS would be evaluating five deans this spring and so asked for more volunteers to the committee. Adjournment: At 4:50 PM, the meeting was interrupted by a hurricane warning and so FC members moved to the basement which resulted in the adjournment of the FC retreat. The trauma of the emergency evacuation from the meeting was lessened significantly by the presence of liquid refreshments. That is, the FC reception started 10 minutes early to the delight of FC members. Shortly thereafter, Christine Wiseman attended the reception. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas Lash REFLECTIONS ON SHARED GOVERNANCE AT LOYOLA PREPARED FOR CHRISTINE WISEMAN By Peter Schraeder Father Garanzini decided to institute a system of shared governance at University Chicago after his arrival at our institution in June 2001. This initiative was designed to overcome the acrimony and distrust that existed between administrators and staff, students and especially faculty as a result of a period of university decline now typically referred to as the troubles associated with the decision-making culture of the previous administration. After a series of discussions, a provisional shared governance charter was approved in February 2003 (see shared governance website) that authorized the creation of a provisional consultative structure, including a University Coordinating Committee (UCC) and seven university policy committees (UPCs): Academic Affairs UPC Faculty Affairs UPC Staff Affairs UPC Student Affairs UPC Strategic Planning UPC Budgeting and Finance UPC Research UPC These committees were constituted in June 2003 and began functioning in fall 2003. It was hoped that this provisional consultative structure would begin the process of healing and more effectively bring students, staff and faculty into the decision-making process. Despite ensuring some progress, however, the provisional shared governance system was flawed, limiting its effectiveness as a vehicle for collaborative policy formulation and implementation. The shortcomings of the system that existed prior to 2007 were highlighted by President Garanzinis Task Force on Shared Governance, which was given the task of conducting university-wide interviews and a university-wide electronic survey during the 2005-06 academic year (see shared governance website). According to the Task Force report: The University community expressed major concerns that the [Shared Governance] System is neither well-known nor well-understood, is ineffectively communicated, is lacking in connectivity to existing advisory and governance groups, and is without full endorsement by many, if not most, faculty, students, and staff (final report of task force on shared governance). Among the most noteworthy flaws in shared governance cited by the Task Force report or in subsequent discussions by representative university bodies such as Unified Student Government, Staff Council and Faculty Council included: A top-down model favored the selection of faculty, staff and student UPC members by administrators, leading critics to question the degree to which the UPCs truly represented faculty, staff and student interests. Administrators would either chair or select the person who would chair the UPC and its meetings, leading critics to argue that the decision-making process too-heavily favored administration interests. The presence of the most senior of administrators on UPCs inadvertently stifled debate, even among lower-ranking administrators who would not wish to publicly contradict a superior when a sensitive issue was being discussed. Lack of sense of ownership of the UPC structure by its constituencies, as witnessed by the example of the Students Affairs UPC, in which students constituted a minority of UPC members. After extensive discussions among administrators, faculty, staff and students during the fall 2007 semester, President Garanzini in February 2007 announced the adoption of a revised shared governance charter (see shared governance website). The UCC and the seven UPCs were subsequently reconstituted during the spring 2007 semester, beginning the work of dealing with a backlog of policy issues. Overall the new shared governance structure has been greeted with optimism beginning in spring 2007 from the major participants. This optimism is based on the following core changes that were adopted: A bottom-up model in which increased numbers of faculty, staff and student UPC representatives are chosen by and therefore representative of their respective elected bodies: Faculty Council, Staff Council and Unified Student Government. The chairpersons, and therefore the individuals who run the meetings, of the UCC and the UPCs are elected by their respective committee memberships. For the majority of UPCs (except Strategic Planning and Budget and Finance), the most senior of administrators appoint designees to represent them. Great deal of ownership of the UPC structure by its constituencies. For example, 7/10 members of the Faculty Affairs UPC are faculty members, 6/9 members of the Staff Affairs UPC are staff members, 5/9 members of the Research UPC are faculty, and 5/10 members of the Student Affairs UPC are students. Now that the structure of the shared governance system has been restructured to represent the interests of administrators and faculty, staff and students alike, the key issue for faculty, staff and students is the degree to which the administration will take the decisions of the UCC and the UPCs seriously. The system, after all, is advisory, but with the expectation among faculty, staff and students that administration acceptance of UCC and UPC decisions will be the norm rather than the exception. Indeed, as members of Faculty Council noted in our June 2007 meeting with you, you as Provost obviously have the ability to set the tone of how seriously the shared governance system will be taken at this historic turning point in Loyolas history.     PAGE  PAGE 1 PAGE  PAGE 1 $M\ckl     / D V W f g   ' - / ^ _ n o t   h w ̷̠hq h+H5 h+Hh+H h+Hhrh+H hj5hjhj5h(h_e hj5>*hjhj5>*h4l| hjhjhjhlhrhKdh?m=$,@AV W ^ _ 4 5 W X { & Fgd{h^hgdD & FgdDgdjgd_e & Fgd_e & FgdjDMM 3 4 5 X i k f .6]ix}T=kW)*,¾¾¾¾ξξκκκh9hJCh6h.h6h6>*hqhDh1>h}$h{h(h?mhjhj5>*hjh_ehr1F{|cd'"^gdun & Fgdj]^gd6 & Fgd6 & Fgd.^gd6gd6 & Fgd{8^8gd{,0B59@PGPUa k !,!N!!!!ǽǶDzDzDzDzhPhhh' h=h=hunhj]5>*hunhR h6>*h6hj]>*hJCh(h4l|hj]hj]>*h6hj]hqh8~B!!""0#####E$$$$$$$%&u&~&&&&&&&&''''"(+((((((((r)s)#*,***++,.,g,,,,,- -!---4-9-G-'.).00 1̸̸̼̮ЦЦЦh(i$h`hunhz5>*hQ[h:/h_h_>*hj]hzh(hhhPhP>*hPh'>*hunh'h_h+HhPhrA'"("##$$$%%&&&&((s)G***+, & FgdQ[ & Fgdz^gd_ & Fgd_8^8gd_ & Fgd_ & Fgdj]^gdun^gd_^gdPgdP+,.,i,!--.R//.1+2o2223344Y5Z5[55 & Fgd 3 & Fgd+H & Fgd/gd+H8^8gd 3 & Fgd(i$ & Fgd(i$ & Fgdz & Fgdj]8^8gd_ 1-1.1O1V122222223334455=5X5Y5[555!6"6#6$60626<6>6_6h66667F7G7J77778 8f8!KKDMEMGMHMJMKMMMNMhf}:jhf}:U h1>6 h1>5h1>h >howhRhunhun5>*hj]hun h+H5>*h+Hh/hunh/5>*hunh(i$5>*h 3h(h(i$h:/h`955"6#67777778888888 848S8f8g88:gd1>$a$gd1>^gd >gd > & Fgdj]^gdun^gd 3 h^`hgd 38:9:g;h;};;;;;;;;==??@@mAnAEBCCDD8F & Fgd1>gd1> & Fgd1>gd1>  !gd1>8F9FGGGHINJOJCMDMFMGMIMJMLMMMOMPMYMZM[MfMgMhMh]hgd(i$ &`#$gd/^gd > & Fgd1>gd1>NMPMQMWMXMYM[M\MbMcMdMeMfMhMiMoMpMqMsMtMzM{M|M}M~MMMMh1>hU0JmHnHuhU hU0JjhU0JUhf}:hMqMrMsM~MMMMM^gd >h]hgdr1 &`#$gdow 1h/ =!"#$%@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List4@4 (i$Header  !.)@. (i$ Page Number4 @4 r1Footer  !DC@"D 1>Body Text Indent ^El$,@AVW^_45WX  { | cd'( s!G"""+$.$i$!%%&R''.)+*o***++,,Y-Z-[---".#.//////0000000 040S0f0g08292g3h3}33333333557788m9n9E:;;<<8>9>???@ANBOBCEDEFEIEYEZE[EfEgEqErEsE~EEE000000000 00 00 00 00 00 0X 0X 0X0 00000000 0000 0000 00 000000 0  00 0 0 0000 0  0  0  0  0 0 0  0.$ 0.$ 0!% 0!% 0!% 0.$ 0.$ 0.$ 0.$0 0 0 0* 0* 0*00 0 000 00(0(0(0(0(0(0000 0x0x000 000x0x00000 00 00 00 0 00 00 0 0000000000000080  08 0x 0x 0x0x0x0 0x0x 0x 0x 0 0x0x00@00@00@00d7@00@00@0@0@00dH8@00@00@0@00쭨 $/<<<? ,! 1NMM'*,-04{'"+,58:8FhMM(+./1235M)  $+/68?!!!! T!  ! #J(5.ER(<.E8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstime9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace 10162450HourMinute]atx 3=4$>$%%%%)+)))\0e0n0w0`3d36&6: :C;G;"=+===L@P@@@sCwCDEDEFEFEGEGEIEJELEMEOEPEEEAU0"7"""))DEDEFEFEGEGEIEJELEMEOEPEEE33333}5Xf  -b,Bz7!s!#*$+$.$$!%).)*+*///0CEDEDEFEFEGEGEIEJELEMEOEPEEEDEDEFEFEGEGEIEJELEMEOEPEEEs`^lw!B;ȤQ{P<.*[R[ k^XW6chi ^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(Q{Ps`w!k^.*[chi                                                      98Q[zl}hL2P(7!(i$}$^(, 36T86f}:1>JCDTkPcmPj]Kd+pe?mun"o v4l|8~ow.q{rrr19h/X2`jRb+H:/__e' >UPqPr=@IEP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hKV :#}V :#}!4!E!E2QHP ?KdFaculty Council Retreat Nicholas A. LashInformation Services$      Oh+'0 4@ \ h t Faculty Council Retreat Nicholas A. Lash Normal.dotInformation Services6Microsoft Word 10.0@V@z~Y@H#@]3V :՜.+,0 hp   University Chicago}#!E Faculty Council Retreat Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012345689:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_bRoot Entry Fñb3d1Table7l1WordDocument"lSummaryInformation(PDocumentSummaryInformation8XCompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q