 |
|
Attendance: Approximately 35 persons
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. in 124 Herring Hall. The agenda consisted of six items:
- Approval of the minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1994
- Faculty governance: Action on revised by-laws for Faculty Council
- Announcements about new strategic planning initiative
- Review of University committees
- The status of the Self-Study Program
- Announcements
As explained below, the faculty governance motion was sent back to Faculty Council for further revisions. The Provost sketched the strategic planning process that will soon begin, led by a committee of faculty, staff, and students. Vice President Camacho reported on a review of University committees that will result in recommendations to President Gillis. John Boles and Dean Mary McIntire, who are chairing the Self Study, reported that a team will soon visit to review the compliance report and assist the steering committee. The President commended Boles and McIntire for outstanding work on the Self Study; the faculty thanked them with a long round of applause.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Faculty Governance Proposal
The Speaker of Faculty Council, Larry McIntire, presented the revised by-laws for Faculty Council and outlined the principal changes: (1) a staff representative to be added to University Council; (2) all Faculty Council members to be eligible to become Speaker; and (3) the Tenure and Ethics Committee to be renamed the Appeals Committee and to have an appeals function consistent with the University's policy on research misconduct and conflict of interest, which is now being revised. Steve Baker moved that the proposed by-laws be adopted; Walter Isle seconded the motion.
Four principal objections to the proposed by-laws were raised. (1) Ron Stebbings was concerned with the way that descriptions of University Council operations were incorporated into the by-laws of Faculty Council, causing confusion about whether certain statements pertained to both bodies or to one or the other. He also noted outcomes that seemed undesirable, such as having only three tenured faculty elected to University Council or having no assistant professors elected in some years. (2) Alan Grob inquired whether students had been consulted about that the proposed change giving only Faculty Council the "gatekeeping" function concerning curriculum, which would exclude students from participating in matters that concerned them. (3) John Freeman speculated that having a Speaker of Faculty Council who was not a member of University Council might result in reduced communication with the Administration. (4) Dean Jim Pomerantz inquired whether the inclusive language concerning the Appeals Committee might be interpreted to mean that a wide variety of decisions might be appealed to the committee, creating an untenable work load. Larry McIntire repeated the reasons that Faculty Council had endorsed the proposed changes and affirmed that the senior administration was holding monthly meetings that ensured full communication with Faculty Council and University Council. He also responded to Stebbings' point by saying that the revision should refer to both Faculty Council and University Council. Several persons suggested various ways of repositioning, rewording, and retitling the proposed revisions (shown on page 3 of the Proposed By-laws attached to the meeting agenda). Alan Chapman objected to the attempted on-the-spot fixes and moved that the proposal be sent back to Faculty Council for a thorough revision. Dean Jim Kinsey asked that University Council be consulted about future revisions. It appeared to be the consensus that Faculty Council should consult fully with persons involved in procedures mentioned in the by-laws and persons involved in related policies when it devised the next revision of the by-laws. Although Steve Baker offered a spirited defense of the faculty's right to specify the University Council's function without consultation, inasmuch as the faculty had created both the Faculty Council and the University Council, the motion carried.
Report on the Strategic Planning Process and New Ad Hoc Strategic Planning Committee
Provost David Auston informed the faculty about a committee the President has appointed to develop a vision of Rice's future and to recommend specific actions for the next ten years. The Committee will consist of twelve faculty, students, and staff. All but a few members have already been appointed. Work will begin very soon, and many people will be able to participate in discussions with subcommittees, in town meetings, and through other hearings. The Provost suggested some examples of issues that the Committee will be asked to address: (1) how to define quality and establish criteria in programs; (2) how to balance resource allocation for graduate and undergraduate education; (3) graduate student teaching; and (4) strengths and possible improvements to the college system. In response to questions, the Provost expanded on the Committee's process, explaining that the role of alumni and Board members has not been worked out at present; the Committee is expected to work to completion and present a twenty-five page report by December 1995. When asked whether the Committee would meet during the summer and how much work would be involved for junior faculty (who often count on summer months to pursue research projects essential for progress toward tenure), the Provost explained that no junior faculty had been appointed and that the Committee might communicate via E-mail and other electronic means, creating a "virtual community" during the summer. The mechanisms used to select committee members were varied: Deans recommended faculty; the Student Association nominated undergraduate members, and the Graduate Student Association nominated graduate students from whom the Provost might make appointments. President Gillis noted that this Committee sails into strategic planning under different circumstances than planners at many other universities, which have begun strategic planning projects during financial crises. In contrast, Rice will begin the process in relatively good times in the hope that it will be able to ensure strength should the external environment not be so favorable at any time over the next ten years.
Review of Standing Committees to Improve Member Selection and Committee Effectiveness
Vice-President Zen Camacho reported on the work of a taskforce that has been reviewing the University committee system. Steve Moniaci and Colleen Lamos, Chair of the Committee on Committees, provided additional comments. The taskforce has met with all chairs of the twenty-nine committees and has reviewed their charges and functions. The taskforce plans to present its recommendations in less than three weeks. Colleen Lamos, noted that when the taskforce was formed her committee was already engaged in trying to improve the selection process to ensure that more people participated in committees in which they were interested. The work of the taskforce, in which she has participated, will enable Faculty Council to recommend more sweeping reforms. Vice-President Camacho said that the recommendations will include guidelines, such as requiring that a person must serve on a committee before being appointed as chair in order to familiarize the person with the committee's operations before taking a leadership role. President Gillis emphasized that there will be substantial consultation and that the main function of the taskforce has been to advise the president. The taskforce will report to President Gillis, who will take the recommendations to University Council, which will then refer them to Faculty Council. The faculty will vote on any recommendation that Faculty Council later presents.
Update on the Rice University Self-Study Program
John Boles and Dean Mary McIntire reported on the process followed and on the upcoming visit of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' team February 19-21. Boles explained that the process Rice used ten years ago has been replaced with a two-part study: a compliance audit and a strategic evaluation of Rice's future in the information age. Boles praised Paula Cox for an excellent job in preparing the 150+ page compliance report, but he expressed concerns about the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' recent adoption of a new set of rules (still not distributed) and its team's apparent intention to use those rules rather than the 1992 set Rice has followed. Dean Mary McIntire explained that three committees worked on the strategic evaluation of information technology in research (and scholarship), teaching, and support services. The preliminary reports on the impact of information technology in research and teaching are available in the February 9th issue of Rice News. President Gillis thanked the chairs for outstanding work. He said the Self Study reports will influence the strategic planning process and that they have already expanded his own appreciation of how technology can enhance the educational experience of Rice students. The faculty responded with a long round of applause.
Interested faculty may view the videotape of this meeting, which has been deposited in the archives in the Woodson Research Library in Fondren Library. The Secretary encourages all faculty members to attend future meetings and participate fully in discussions and decisions. When each person present is obliged to represent ten absent colleagues, all views may not be represented.
Respectfully Submitted,
Linda Driskill, Secretary of the Faculty