|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 140
Announced Agenda: 7 items
1. Approval of the minutes of May 7, 2004 (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~facsec/facmin/04-05-07.html)
2. Unfinished business - none
3. Report of Special Committee on Faculty Governance
4. Report from University Standing Committee on Athletic Admissions
5. New business - President's Address to Faculty
6. Announcements
a. President's Inauguration
b. Faculty meetings: November 18, January 26, March 16, May 137. Adjournment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President David Leebron called to order and chaired the General Faculty Meeting in McMurtry Auditorium of Duncan Hall at 4:02 PM. Alan Chapman served as Parliamentarian. The media was acknowledged as being present.
1. Minutes of May 7, 2004 faculty meeting - On motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the May 7, 2004 faculty meeting were APPROVED as circulated in advance on the web.
2. Unfinished business - none.
3. Report of Special Committee on Faculty Governance - Stephen Zeff, co-chair of the Task Force on Faculty and Shared Governance, presented the initial report of the committee. The task force was created late in the spring of 2004 by Faculty Council, and its other members are Janet Braam, co-chair, Carl Caldwell, secretary, Keith Cooper, Dick Grandy, Elizabeth Long, David Scott, and Steven Crowell, liaison to Faculty Council.
Zeff began by sharing that there are now approximately 500 tenured and tenure-track faculty at the University, an increase of about 30% in the last 20 years. Rice's faculty governance system began in the early 1970's. The Task Force on Governance was given the charge to examine the structure, policies, and procedures of faculty and shared governance at Rice and, in order to improve faculty and shared governance, to propose changes to enhance the quality, consistency, and timeliness of decisions, simplify and strengthen the committee structure, and empower faculty.
The task force sent out a tentative list of proposals to all faculty via email on August 31. (See Attachment A.) This information is also located on the Faculty Council web site, at the Task Force on Faculty and Shared Governance hyperlink.
Zeff read the issues that were raised by the Faculty Council's Committee on Governance:
The Task Force explored alternative "faculty governance
models" to the one currently used at Rice. Issues ranging from the performance
of the assembled faculty as a decision-making body to the effectiveness of Faculty
Council itself have prompted this discussion. They have examined the models
used at a sample of comparable universities and have begun to conduct a series
of meetings with the deans, the Provost, and the President in order to benefit
from their experience and opinions.
At this stage, it would be helpful to receive comments from the faculty as a
whole on new options being considered. One option is to move toward a representative
faculty assembly, known as a Faculty Senate, which would exercise some of the
authority now vested in the faculty as a whole. Another option is to improve
Rice's Faculty Council, while retaining plenary meetings of the full faculty.
Common to both of these options is a proposed disengagement of the University's
Promotion and Tenure Committee from the election or appointment to the Senate
or the Council. The Task Force is also looking at improvements in the appointment
and monitoring of committees, creation of a longer term for the speaker to provide
more continuity in leadership, and electronic or paper voting on important issues.
Jordon Konisky asked if a more dramatic change in the structure of P&T had been considered. He stated that at many universities the colleges are empowered to make P&T decisions, with no P&T committee above the college level. The college makes the P&T recommendation to the provost and president, thus eliminating the overarching promotions and tenure committee. Zeff replied that the Task Force had not discussed this issue, and he felt it would be interesting to get faculty opinions in this regard.
Zeff urged the faculty to send their comments and opinions to the Task Force on Faculty and Shared Governance.
4. Report from University Standing Committee on Athletic Admissions - After students exited the meeting, President Leebron called on Janet Braam, co-chair of the Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid, to report for the UCAFA. Braam began with some general facts regarding the new entering freshman class. She discussed athlete admissions and compared the credentials of 2004 admitted scholarship athletes and performance of scholarship athletes enrolled at Rice over previous years. SAT scores for entering freshmen athletes and non-athletes were summarized and compared.
Performance of freshman athletes was examined by SAT score providing the mean spring GPA and spring credit earned. Also an analysis of scholarship athletes by class was provided showing cumulative GPA's for freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Data comparing the GPA for scholarship athletes and all students was also provided. A printout is attached to the hard copy of these minutes.
5. New Business - President's Address to Faculty - President Leebron did not have a formal address for the faculty, but presented some remarks regarding his process of getting to know Rice and its community, and his views regarding the process of achieving a set of priorities in terms of a vision for Rice. He asked for help from all the faculty and divided the issues into four categories: sharing ideas, cultivating open discussion, fostering transparent decision making, and proceeding with an even greater sense of loyalty and commitment to the institution.
President Leebron elaborated on his vision for Rice at this point in time, explained his decision to restructure how undergraduate education and undergraduate services are administered, detailed several reasons behind the move of the Office of the President and the Office of the Provost to Allen Center, and shared some of his views for the development of a new and ambitious program for the University.
6. Announcements - Bob Patten announced that Professor Lynne Huffer was elected the new speaker of the faculty at the first Faculty Council meeting of the year.
a. President's Inauguration - Patten provided details of the scheduled events and encouraged all faculty to participate in the investiture ceremony.
b. Faculty Meetings - President Leebron announced the dates of the remaining faculty meetings of the year: November 18, January 26, March 16, May 13.
The meeting adjourned at 4:47.
Respectively submitted,
Janis Cain
Secretary to the Faculty
Attachment A
To: Rice Faculty
From: Task Force on Governance (Janet Braam
[co-chair], Steve Zeff [co-chair], Carl Caldwell [secretary], Keith Cooper,
Richard Grandy, Elizabeth Long, David Scott)
Re: Request for Faculty Feedback via Task Force Webpage
(http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~faccoun/Task_Forcefeedback)
Date: August 26, 2004
In late spring 2004, the Faculty Council created a Task Force on Governance
with the following charge: Examine the structure, policies, and procedures
of faculty and shared governance at Rice. In order to improve faculty and shared
governance, propose changes that will enhance the quality, consistency, and
timeliness of decisions, simplify and strengthen the committee structure, and
empower faculty. The Task Force has been exploring alternative "faculty
governance models" to the one currently used at Rice. Issues ranging from
the performance of the assembled faculty as a decision-making body to the effectiveness
of Faculty Council itself have prompted this discussion. (A listing of issues
drawn up by Faculty Council is available here.) We have examined the models
used at a sample of comparable universities and have begun to conduct a series
of meetings with the deans, the Provost and the President in order to benefit
from their experience and opinions.
At this stage, it would be helpful to receive comments from the faculty as a
whole on two new options we are considering. One option is to move toward a
representative faculty assembly, known as a Faculty Senate at quite a few universities,
which would exercise some of the authority now vested in the faculty as a whole.
Another option is to improve Rice's Faculty Council, while retaining plenary
meetings of the full faculty.
We welcome comments and responses to the following questions via our
webpage at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~faccoun/Task_Forcefeedback.
Promotion and Tenure Committee
Common to both of these options is a proposed disengagement of the University's
Promotion and Tenure Committee from the election or appointment to the Senate
or the Council. One of the obstacles to attracting good candidates for Faculty
Council and University Council in past years, we believe, has been the linkage
between such membership and service on this busy committee.
Question 1: Do you think that membership on the University's Promotion
and Tenure Committee should be chosen separately from election or appointment
to positions of faculty governance?
Faculty Senate model
As one option, the Task Force has been considering a Faculty Senate model. The
model calls for a Senate of approximately 40 to 50 tenured and tenure-track
faculty to be elected for staggered two- or three-year terms by their respective
Schools. The meetings of the Senate would be open to the University community.
The Chair of the Faculty Senate would be either the President or the Faculty
Speaker, who would be elected by the Senate or by the full faculty. The President
and Provost would be ex officio members of the Senate. Once each year, the Senate
would invite the President to deliver a "State of the University"
address to the Senate.
In addition to Faculty Senate meetings, there would be one or two plenary meetings
of the faculty in the winter and spring in order to approve candidates for graduation
and consider other issues deemed relevant by the Faculty Senate.
Question 2. In a Faculty Senate, do you favor the President or the Faculty
Speaker as the Chair?
The Faculty Senate's agenda would be set by an Executive Committee chosen by
Faculty Senate. It would be chaired by the President or the Faculty Speaker.
If the latter, the Speaker would confer in advance with the President and Provost
on the agenda proposals.
One advantage of the Faculty Senate model is that it would overcome the perceived
unrepresentativeness of plenary faculty meetings. A second advantage is that
senators, being elected by their school would feel more responsibility in carrying
out their duties. Thirdly, senators would have more influence than current Faculty
Council members since Senate votes would decide important matters.
Question 3. What is your opinion of the principle of a Faculty Senate
model?
Standing Committees
Committees dealing primarily with faculty issues (e.g., Undergraduate Curriculum,
Library, Examinations and Standing) would be named by the Senate and would be
expected to report to the Senate. Committees dealing primarily with University
issues (e.g., Admissions, Athletics) would be appointed by the President, after
consulting with the Faculty Senate, and would be expected to report to the President.
Currently, all committees are appointed by the President after seeking advice
from the Faculty Council's Committee on Committees, but there has been a haphazard
process of holding meetings, filing reports, and reviewing the performance of
the committees. Committee chairs should have served previously on the committee,
and the term of the chair should be limited.
Question 4. Does this sound like a reasonable approach to appointing
committees?
Faculty Council Reform
As another option, the Task Force has been giving thought to reforming Faculty
Council rather than calling for a new Faculty Senate. Reforms would aim at increasing
the authority, effectiveness, and representation of Faculty Council. Some measures
considered include the following:
1) to increase the number of representatives on Faculty Council to 18;
2) to reduce terms of service to three years, with a term limit of six years;
3) to improve (or in some cases create) information flows between Faculty Council
and standing committees, requiring heads of committees to report to the Faculty
Council;
4) to increase the range of tasks over which the Faculty Council, as the elected
representatives of the Faculty, represent the voice of the Faculty.
Question 5: Is the Faculty Council in need of reform, and if so what
do you think of the Task Force's suggestions for reform?
Speaker of the Faculty Council or Faculty Senate
The Speaker provides leadership for the representatives of the Faculty in whatever
system we have-the current Faculty Council, a reformed Faculty Council, or a
new Faculty Senate. The Task Force is considering a recommendation that the
Speaker be elected to a three-year term, serving as Deputy Speaker in the first
year, Speaker in the second, and head of Committee on Committees in the third
year. A three-year term would provide for more continuity in faculty governance.
Question 6: Do you support electing the Speaker to a three-year term?
If so, should the Speaker be elected by the faculty directly or by the representatives
of the faculty?
Electronic Voting
The assembled Faculty at present votes on important matters, including curriculum
and calendar. One alternative to this system would involve voting by the entire
faculty on important matters, either electronically or by paper ballots. Faculty
would not need to attend the faculty meetings to make their voices heard-which
would greatly relieve those with tight schedules, and in particular those with
childcare responsibilities. Opportunity for discussion would be provided electronically,
and perhaps in open meetings that could be taped and made available to those
who could not attend.
Question 7: Would the implementation of electronic or paper voting improve
governance by ensuring adequate voice to all? Do you have suggestions for mechanisms
of informing those faculty who do not attend faculty meetings of the issues?