|
Summary
of Actions Taken
-
Approved
minutes of March 24, 2003 University Senate
meeting.
-
Item
4 section 2: “… students charged with academic
dishonesty can not “drop” the course, even
if the act occurs before the “withdrawal deadline”,
was passed because it is possible to do a
retroactive add after a student has dropped
the class.
Excused:
Crow, Whatley, Brooks, Cranmer, Evilia, Paradise
Absent:
Ryan, Smith, Gautreaux, Childs, Stamps, Munster
1.
Call to Order
The
meeting was called to order by the Chancellor
at 3:12p.m.
2.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes
of the March 24 2003, meeting were approved.
3.
Remarks by the Chancellor
a. The Chancellor
welcomed the senate and voiced his desire to workshop
ideas on things the Senate can do to recruit young
doctoral students. He remarked that the $150
Academic fee, approved by the legislature, in
the political world would be exempt from TOPS.
The Chancellor reported that there is a huge list
of things that need to be taken care of at UNO
and the fees are needed to keep the University
in the process of improvement initiatives. UPCOM
will be making recommendations on how to use the
funds. The fee is applicable to all students.
The Chancellor reported that he and Vice Chancellor
of Governmental and Community Affairs, Bob Brown,
met with House Representative Committee Chairman
of Education, Carl Crane, regarding House Bill
1429, which allows LSU Board of Supervisors to
increase the Academic Excellence Fee at LSU-Baton
Rouge, and about House Bill 1786, the Academic
Excellence Fee Bill for UNO.
b.
The Chancellor asked the Senate for support of
the Senate on House Bill 1786 and 1556. House
Bill 1556, the Facilities, Maintenance and Use
Fee, would allow the LSU Board of Supervisors
to impose a specified fee increase for students
coming to UNO. He remarked that these funds are
desperately needed for maintenance of our facilities;
most of the campus’ buildings were built in the
1960’s and 1970’s. Dr. Ray Sweeney added that
the Regents are pushing for House Bill 1536 which
“requires the Board of Regents to study and formulate
a state tuition and fee policy for public postsecondary
education institutions and provides relative to
certain legislative approval”; this would allow
the universities to increase fees with 2/3’s vote
of the legislature. The Chancellor remarked that
UNO has $15 M in maintenance projects and that
there is a $60 fee beyond the $150 for such.
The 2004 – 2006 revenue stream of this would be
for the needed renovations and would give UNO
students an advantage with added and essential
modern technologies.
c.
The Chancellor remarked that UNO has $15 M in
maintenance projects and that there is a $60 fee
beyond the $150 for such. The 2004 – 2006 revenue
stream of this would be for the needed renovations
and would give UNO students an advantage with
modern technology.
d.
The Chancellor also commented on Senate Bill 571
authored by Senator Paulette Irons, which authorizes
the establishment of a laboratory school at UNO,
New Millennium Laboratory School, and said it
is receiving very positive support.
e.
The Chancellor reminded the Senate that the dedication
to the Homer L. Hitt Alumni and Visitor Center
will take place on September 5th along
with the 45th Founders Day Anniversary
celebration. The alumni Center staff will be
moving in during the summer. The Chancellor reported
that Dr. Hitt is well and asked the Senate to
keep him in prayers of continued health.
f.
The Chancellor told the Senate he would like to
find a way for the UNO community to find a way
to recognize faculty and staff members who die
before they retire from the University; perhaps
a memorial garden with a plaque.
g.
The Chancellor stated that in the Fall UPCOM would
be working on a revised mission statement for
SACS, and he finished on a sad note by stating
that this would be Dr. Gary Allen’s last Senate
meeting and asked the Senate to wish Dr. Allen
a productive and happy retirement.
4.
Report from the Provost
None
5.
SACS Update: Dr. Bruce King, Director of
Instructional Effectiveness
Dr.
King reported that the SACS reaffirmation agenda
is a two part process, 1) certification of compliance,
2) quality enhancement (a 75 page plan). The
accreditation process starts June 9th
when the Leadership team goes to Atlanta . It
is the Leadership team that makes sure the University
as a whole is in compliance with SACS’ requirements
and standards. Institutional Effectiveness reports
are due in for non-academic departments by August
15th . A quality retention enhancement
plan will be headed by Dr. Ed Johnson, Director,
Freshman Affairs, and Dr. Peter Schock, Assistant
Professor and Graduate Coordinator, English.
The Chancellor commented that it is important
and critical that the University does what is
says it will do; he reminded the Senate that accreditation
is a tough task and a continuous one.
6.
Action Items
Committee
C:
Item
4 section 2: “… students charged with academic
dishonesty can not “drop” the course, even if
the act occurs before the “withdrawal deadline”,
was passed because it is possible to do a retroactive
add after a student has dropped the class. This
item was brought forth for discussion. When Dr.
Gary Gundersen, Research Professor, Mathematics,
commented that if a student was not dropped from
the class wouldn’t it be a “held hostage” atmosphere?
Dr. Gundersen wondered if it wouldn’t be better
to allow the student to drop from the course and
keep the charges of academic dishonesty in process
without having the student being a possible disruption
in the classroom. Dr. Alan Artibise, Dean, College
of Urban and Public Affairs replied that the student
is not required to go to class. Dr. Dennis McSeveney,
Associate Provost, commented that should a student
create a difficult environment, the professor
can have the student dropped from the course;
the drop would supercede a grade issue. Chris
Baker, Student Government Representative gave
his concerns that if a student was accused, and
not found guilty, even if some classroom tension
had occurred, that the student be allowed to drop
from the course; if found guilty, then they would
continue the course. Dr. Ray Sweany, Professor,
Chemistry, remarked that if the student had more
cases of plagiarism, it would be a cause of embarrassment.
Dr. Sweany suggested that the Faculty, when faced
with such an event, might help the student find
means of succeeding and offer encouragement rather
than dissent. Dr. Gundersen agreed, but still
voiced his doubt. The Chancellor remarked that
it is difficult to write a policy that handles
all areas, but such an event would be small in
number. Should a problem situation occur, the
instructor would give the student an “F” or a
zero; if the problem goes beyond normal bounds,
the instructor has a right to take the situation
to the next level.
The
Chancellor took a moment to introduce to the Senate
SGA President-elect Jeraul Mackey. Mr. Mackey
told the Senate he looks forward to working with
them, and on making his term as SGA President
very positive for the students and the University.
He remarked that he was very excited by the whole
process of the Senate meetings because his goal
is to be a Superintendent of inter-city schools
some day.
7.
Policy Committee Report: Dr. Diana Hulse-Killacky,
Chair
The
survey on Faculty Council Committees should go
out any time, Dr. Hulse-Killacky encouraged Senators
to complete the survey and encourage their colleagues
to do so also.
Dr.
Hulse-Killacky mentioned that the evaluations
for Deans King and Ryan were completed and also
acknowledged the work of Joe Razek, PC Vice-Chair,
and Janette Griffin for designing the process
and preparing all the materials.
Dr.
Hulse-Killacky said the Post Tenure Review Oversight
Committee was now formed, and reported that this
was her last report as Policy Committee chair.
She expressed her appreciation to all members
of the Policy Committee who worked hard this year;
who took their duties seriously, and modeled the
best of collaboration. She thanked Jim Knudsen
and Joe Razek who are leaving the committee and
mentioned Janette Griffin, Gary Gundersen, Enrique
LaMotta, and Bob Whelan, who are returning next
fall for another year. The Chancellor commented
that this was a wonderful Policy Committee to
work with, “the best you could hope for”, and
thanked Dr. Hulse-Killacky and the Committee for
all that they did in the previous year.
8.
Faculty Representative to LSU Board of
Supervisors: Dr. Diana Hulse-Killacky
The
Faculty Advisory representatives are examining
a tuition waiver for faculty to vie with Loyola
and Tulane Universities. Louisiana State University
in Shreveport has put together a proposal for
such a waiver. Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge currently is the only university in the
system that has a wavier for faculty and partial
wavier for dependents. Dr. Diana Hulse-Killacky
asks the Senate for support for this initiative.
Dr. Alan Artibise, Dean, College of Urban and
Public affairs stressed to the Senate that that
to keep competitive with other universities, state,
even nationwide, that it would be prudent to place
an emphasis on tuition waiver for dependents.
The Chancellor remarked that Tulane’s program
is in place because it is a wonderful tool that
keeps employees within their system. The Chancellor
and the Provost will bring this initiative up
to UPCOM. The Chancellor said that such a benefit
for faculty and for university dependents is a
wonderful Human Resource instrument and a great
device to attract high quality faculty and employees
to UNO and the LSU system. The Chancellor asked
for a sense of the Senate on the issue. The Senate
seconded and passed such an initiative. (See letter
to LSU System Council of Faculty Advisors, Appendix
A.)
9. Comments,
questions and suggestion
N/A
10. Questions
for Administrators
N/A
11.
Committee Assignments
Committee
A:
Look into the feasibility of scheduling classes
such that there are essentially equal numbers
of classes each semester regardless of the night
of the week on which they fall, including the
possibility of not having class the Wednesday
night before Thanksgiving. Dr. David
Allen requested feedback, but
said since next year’s schedule is already made
that there is no rush. On the basis of the survey
regarding not having class the Wednesday night
before Thanksgiving, the consensus was that it
would not be disastrous. The Chancellor remarked
that this issue is not an easy one, but an important
one. He also suggested that the Senate might
want to look into how to make up for lost days
during hurricanes.
12.
Other Reports
a. Association
of Louisiana Faculty Senates: Dr. Ray Sweany
The
executive budget for 2003-2004 contains requests
for approximately $61M in new money for higher
education. Much of it is to cover mandated cost
increases. Thus, like last year, there is money
to cover required civil service wage increases
and increases in group benefits premiums. This
year, also, there is money to compensate institutions
for increased risk-management expenditures.
There are several inclusions for one-time expenditures,
principle among which is money for equipment and
for matches of endowed chair and professorship
donations. Finally, there are requests for new,
recurring costs for community colleges and for
master plan implementation. The commissioner
went before the House Appropriations Committee
on April 15 and tried to sell the legislature
that the budget requests were essentially a standstill
budget. There is no request for faculty salary
increases in the general appropriation.
In
addition, there are about a dozen requests for
permission to increases fees from several institutions,
including UNO. The commissioner has got a bill
filed by Rep. LeBlanc (HB1536) which would require
that the Regents establish a policy for fee increases.
This would mean that the management boards would
be able to increase tuition and fees without seeking
a 2/3 majority of the legislature as long as it
fit within the constraints of the Regents policy
and received the approval of the Joint Legislative
Committee on the Budget. Conceivably this measure
would preempt the individual requests for specific
fee increases. At one point, the Regents’ staff
were hoping for a plethora of requests for fee
increases so that the legislature would opt for
HB1536, instead. Passage of the bill would require
the super-majority because implementation of the
Regents’ policy would be contained in the same
legislation. The Commissioner suggested that
management boards might be empowered to increase
tuition and fees as early as November under this
plan.
The
staff of the Regents is unhappy with the current
formula because it rewards institutions for head
count without regard to whether the student mix
fits the appropriate recipe for a particular type
of institution. LSU is easy to use as an example.
It is to be funded at the level of a flagship
institution with a reimbursement that is calculated
from the level of funding for research one universities
in the SREB. This is based on their Ph.D. productivity.
The staff questions whether LSU is appropriately
defined by this criterion. It turns out that
the graduate students comprise a relatively small
proportion of the student body and conceivably
it is the lowest within the peer group. With
such a large number of undergraduates, should
LSU be funded as if it were like a University
of Texas? The staff believes it shouldn’t be.
Otherwise, an institution could make a push to
obtain the minimum number of Ph.D. degrees to
merit a certain level of funding and then fill
up its student body with freshman, all to be reimbursed
at the higher rate.
Basically,
the staff wants to return to a formula resembling
that which was replaced in 2000 where universities
would be compensated for educating individual
classes of students based on reasonable measures
of the actual cost for providing that education.
The old formula was criticized for catalyzing
“mission creep” where institutions would throw
all the efforts toward getting more students for
which there were large reimbursements. The new
formula seems to catalyze “mission slip”, by contrast.
Of course, if the new new formula were to accurately
reflect actual expenditures, then opting for the
high level of reimbursement would not enrich the
institution.
The
formula that is anticipated would do more than
just accurately reflect actual costs. It could
also be used as an incentive for institutions
to match how they are described in their role
and scope statements. They could determine that
there would be no cost reimbursement for remedial
education at a research 1 university, for instance.
I have quoted the commissioner before as wanting
to incent institutions to be what the Master Plan
envisions them to be and to disincent them from
being what the Master Plan steers them away from.
The
Board has asked the staff to provide a new system
in two months with possible adoption in three
months. This is a very rapid pace and indicates
to me that the new system has already been largely
worked out. Campuses and systems will see the
system soon and have an opportunity to react to
it. Following that, it is to be adopted.
ALFS
passed several resolutions at its Spring meeting:
RESOLUTION
ON TENURE AND THE LCTCS
The
Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates affirms
that the Louisiana Community and Technical College
System adopt a Tenure policy consistent with
Regents' Policy on Tenure.
RESOLUTION
ON FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCILS
The
Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates recommends
that there be Faculty Advisory Councils to all
system Boards of Supervisors. It should be a
faculty responsibility to devise a constitution
for such a body even as the Boards of Supervisors
retain oversight responsibility in their acts
of recognition. Further, every effort should
be made to facilitate faculty participation in
Faculty Advisory Councils by providing travel
and scheduling support.
STATEMENT
ON ADMINISTRATIVE PAY RAISES
The
Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates supports
and approves the “Administrative Salary Policy
Guidelines” adopted by the Board of Regents on
March 23, 2000. We agree with the rationale enunciated
in those Guidelines; we concur with the quantification
benchmarks and adjustments which the policy adopts;
and particularly, we endorse the Guidelines’ principle
that administrative salaries not exceed, in percentage
of the SREB administrative average, the counterpart
faculty’s percentage of SREB faculty averages.
Additionally, the
Association urges the Regents to extend the Guidelines
for administrative pay to require an annual formal
evaluation of each administrator and use the evaluation
as a basis for pay raises. Further, this formal
evaluation
•
Should include written evaluations by faculty
supervised by the administration
•
Should include evaluation by the administrator’s
supervisor
•
Should reflect the administrator’s progress toward
predefined performance objectives
•
Should reflect the administrator’s contribution
to institutional goals.
STATEMENT OF
FACULTY PAY RAISES
The
Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates takes
the following position on faculty salaries. In
order to insure the quality of education in the
state of Louisiana, it is imperative that the
faculty be adequately compensated. This can only
be done if the faculty is provided with regular
pay raises. The faculty pay raises must include
cost of living adjustments(across the board),
adjustments for equity and merit raises. By equity
we refer to remedies for discrimination of disadvantaged
groups and salary compression, where new hires
are paid more than established but equally valued
faculty.
The
resolutions have been presented to the commissioner
and we will need to get them disseminated to the
Boards of Supervisors for the systems. Deputy
Commissioner Killabrew is reluctant to force the
Board of the LCTC System to adopt tenure. Our
request for attention on this matter may precipitate
a review of the tenure policy which was formulated
in 1974. He anticipated that a new policy would
be designed to fit the actual practice in the
LCTC System. Otherwise, our resolutions are broadly
supported by the commissioner with the caveat
that some of what we ask for are outside the purview
of the Regents. Thus, we will have to be persuasive
at the system levels.
b.
UNO Staff Council: Mr. David Richardson, President
N/A
c.
Student Government: Mr. Jared Munster, President
N/A
d.
Alumni Association: Dr. Sandra Harris Eason, Senate
Representative
Dr.
Eason told the Senate that Clancy DuBos has been
named as the Homer L. Hitt Distinguished Alumnus
of the Year Award. He will be honored at the annual
Reunion Brunch at the Wyndham Hotel on May 18.
Alumni,
faculty and students are encouraged to purchase
abrick in the new Alumni and Visitor Center patio
as a permanent reminder of their presenceand support
for UNO. Bricksmay be purchased for $100.00 or
$150.00. Check the Alumni website for the form.
She finished by saying that the Annual Golf Classic
is scheduled for May 9. This is always a popular,
fun event. Tickets are $100 per round.
b.
UNO Athletics Council: Ms. Sybil Boudreaux,
Chair
The
Athletic Council met on Monday, April 21, 2003.
Athletic Director Jim Miller, announced that there
will be an All-Sports Banquet held on Tuesday,
April 29 to honor our students and present awards.
Keynote speaker will be Clancy Dubos. Jim also
announced that he is interviewing candidates for
the following positions, Assistant Athletic Director
for Business Development and Promotions and Director
of Fundraising and Alumni Relations. The advertisement
for the position of Director of Student-Athlete
Support Services will run in the newspapers from
April 25 through May 9. Student-Athlete exit
interviews will begin on April 28. Ten student-athletes
have qualified to participate in the Athletic
Departments funded 5th year program.
These are athletes who have completed their years
of competition and are close to graduation. The
Council received updated information from Athletics
on our Gender Equity Plan and our Equal Opportunity
Plan. The Council will also review for adoption
a revised draft of its Policy and Procedures manual
at the June meeting. There will be no May Council
meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for June
9th.
Progress
Report on NCAA Self-Study
In
March and April, Subcommittee's presented revised
drafts of their reports to the Steering Committee.
Completed reports will be presented in early June
and plans for improvement will be finalized by
mid-July. The final report will be available
in September for review by the entire UNO community.
Open hearing will be held to obtain comments.
Dr. Gordon Hosch has agreed to become the Interim
Chair of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Integrity
in Dr. McLean's absence, and Mr. Will Peneguy
has assumed the leadership of the Subcommittee
on Governance and Commitment to Rules Compliance
following the retirement of former Subcommittee
Chair, Ms. Jill Fatzer.
13.
Old Business
N/A
14.
New Business
Adjournment
The
meeting was adjourned 4:53 PM. The Chancellor
thanked the Senate for all their hard work and
wished all a happy and productive summer.
Appendix
A
On
April 24, 2003, the University Senate of the University
of New Orleans voted to support an initiative
to provide tuition waivers for faculty members
and their dependents and for staff dependents
for undergraduate courses at UNO, as staff members
already have tuition benefits. The sense of the
Senate was that this program would provide an
excellent incentive in the hiring and retention
of faculty and staff. This would help keep our
University competitive with Loyola and Tulane
in hiring and retention, since we obviously cannot
compete on salary alone. Additionally, this would
make the benefits offered by the LSU System similar
to those offered by other university systems in
the state as well.
|
