WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

FACULTY SENATE MEETING: October 14, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Bakken, Bees, Behrman, Brooks, Carroll, Chopra, Dawe, DeLillo, deSilva, Edwards, Eichhorn, Enns, Forlaw, Goldy, Hemans, Hershfield, Herzog, Hill, Hiltner, Hodson, Johnson, Kahol, Kear, Klunder, Lancaster, Lause, Matson, Mau, McDonald, Miller, Moore-Jansen, Muma, Murphey, Parker, Quantic, Ravigururajan, Riordan, Ross, Roussel, Teshome, Williamson, Wimalesena, Withrow, Zhang

MEMBERS ABSENT: Clark, May, Rokosz, Sheikh-Ahmad, Yeager

MEMBERS EXCUSED: Celestin, Markovich, Russell

Ex-officio Members Present: VPAAR Kindrick, SGA-D.Sell

SUMMARY OF ACTION:

1. The Senate approved the Rules Committee nominations for several positions.

2. The Senate approved the Guidelines for Undergraduate Certificate Programs as proposed to the Senate by the University Curriculum Committee and the Senate Executive Committee.

3. The Senate considered a proposal, on the first of three "readings," approved by the Senate Executive Committee favoring university-wide mandatory external review for tenure decisions. A motion was approved to postpone further consideration until Joyce Cavarozzi, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, can meet with the Senate.

I. CALL OF MEETING TO ORDER: President Lancaster called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in Room 107, Clinton Hall.

II. INFORMAL STATEMENTS AND PROPOSALS:
A. Senator Carroll pointed out that six or eight emeritus faculty are known to have been left off the list recently sent to faculty for nomination to the Academy for Effective Teaching. Although the problem is being solved for the future, she urged all faculty, when making nominations, to consider whether anyone has been omitted.

B. Senator Roussel, President, WSU AAUP chapter, announced that there will be a state meeting of the AAUP, Saturday, October 26, 10:30-2:30, at FHSU. The topic will be "Collective Bargaining - Perception vs Reality" presented by Dr. Jane West, University of Nebraska, Omaha. She urged all faculty to participate in AAUP.
    She also said that she, as WSU AAUP President, would be available from 12 - 1:00 each Wednesday in JH414D for informal talk with faculty. She encouraged all to come, visit and to taste organic food, French desserts and fair trade coffee.

III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes for the September 9, 2002, meeting of the Senate were approved as distributed with today's Agenda on the Internet.

IV. PRESIDENT'S REPORT: President Lancaster reported to the Senate, speaking, among other things, of the Council of Faculty Senate Presidents retreat at Emporia State University, at which the issue of "seamless articulation" (the easy movement of students from one institution to another) was discussed. He also told how "program review" is coming to have resource implications, which is an additional reason for it to be taken seriously by faculty. He thanked VPAAR Kindrick for his open consideration of faculty input.

V. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

1. Senator Behrman, chair of the Rules Committee, reported the Committee's recommendation of the following persons for the respective positions indicated:

General Education Comm., At Large Basic Skills Rep - Sarah Daugherty
Faculty Rep, Center for Teaching and Research - Barbara Hobson
University Program Review Committee: Robert Lawless, Anthropology; Phyllis Jacobs, Nursing; Ramona Liera-Schwichtenberg, Women's Studies and Religion; Will Klunder, History; Frederick Hemans, Art and Design.

All were unanimously approved.

VI. OLD BUSINESS: None.

VII. NEW BUSINESS:

A. Proposed Certificate Program Guidelines - Charles Koeber, chair, University Curriculum Committee, presented a set of Guidelines for Undergraduate Certificate Programs as approved by the Committee and by the Senate Executive Committee, He indicated that the Guidelines are based on the guidelines used for the graduate certificate programs. These give the University Curriculum Committee the assignment of evaluating proposals for certificate programs, and of approving the now-existing programs; and provide for that Committee's reviewing existing programs at three-year intervals.
There was considerable discussion, focusing particularly on a possible lack of rigor and on whether the notation on students' transcripts will accurately reflect what was done.
Senator McDonald moved, ( Senator Klunder, 2nd ) a motion to require certificate programs to have a minimum of twelve credit hours' work. This was defeated.
The main motion was passed unanimously.

B. Executive Committee Motion: Senator Behrman presented the following motion approved by a 4-2 vote by the Senate Executive Committee: (presentation following the minutes)

The Faculty Senate adopts the principle that external peer reviews obtained according to university policy as expressed in section 4.18 of the WSU Policies and Procedures Manual and section 3.176 of the WSU Handbook for Faculty shall be required for all candidates for tenure hired after June 2003 and shall remain optional in all other cases. The Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee shall have the charge of preparing a motion to amend the Faculty Handbook and the Policies and Procedures Manual so as to implement this principle and shall present this motion to the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate no later than January 21, 2003 for placement on the agenda of the January 27, 2003 Faculty Senate meeting.

President Lancaster indicated the intention that today's meeting be the "first reading" of three readings to consider this proposal. He also indicated the intention of the Senate Executive Committee to have any proposal that is ultimately approved by the Senate submitted to a meeting of the General Faculty for its consideration.

Senator Behrman presented her reasons for supporting the motion. Senator Hershfield followed with a presentation of his reasons for opposing it (statement following the minutes).  President Lancaster announced that he had invited the President of the K U Faculty Senate, Tom Mulinazzi, to speak at the next meeting, 10-28-02.

After much discussion, Senator Williamson moved, (Senator Carroll, 2nd )) to postpone further consideration of the motion until Joyce Cavarozzi, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, can speak to the Senate about it. This was unanimously approved.

VIII: AS MAY ARISE:

1. Lindsay Mullins spoke about Shocktoberfest that will be held this weekend. She stressed that there are events, such as the "Shocker Trivia" competition, that are of particular interest to faculty.

2. Drew Sell spoke on behalf of the Student Government Association committee exploring the use of the computerized "Blackboard" system for course work. He said students would like to see more use of it. It is expensive, he said, to improve the system to the next level; but that the use of Blackboard saves substantially on printing expenses.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dwight Murphey, Secretary

Remarks from President-Elect Behrman:

1. Fairness. At present, though use or non-use is up to the candidate, there are varying standards for the weight, value, and importance of external peer reviews. Because of this, the choice by a candidate not to use external reviews can have a deleterious effect not apparent to the candidate. It may seem like a free choice by the candidate but in fact, especially if there is a change of Dean, there can be hidden costs. Administrators can and have and do hold non-use against the candidate. Our "freedom" is spurious.
2. Objective validation of excellence. More and more institutions that wish to be taken seriously require peer reviews. A full survey of the 64 public institutions in the same Carnegie classification as WSU (Public Doctoral Intensive) shows that of those whose requirements could be ascertained, 27 require peer review for tenure and promotion. Only 5, including us, do not. Our "peer institutions" require it. In Kansas, KU and KState both require peer review, while Pittsburg State, Fort Hayes, and Emporia do not – which category would we rather put ourselves in? [Next week the president of the faculty senate of KU will come talk to us about their system.]
3. Helps the candidate. Some are probably worried that this is putting an extra restriction on ourselves. But: It is (will be) good for the faculty. In my service on LAS P&T, I have never seen an instance in which peer review hurt the candidate. I have seen many in which the candidate was helped. Frequently it happens that the department does not have expertise in the candidate’s subfield. E.g., I probably would not have received tenure or promotion either time had it not been for peer review. President Lancaster has a similar story. It can also happen that a department can have it in for a candidate. External review tends to dampen out those kinds of oscillations, since the reviewer has, in general, no reason not to be objective. [We are at present collecting peer reviews from anyone who wouldn’t mind sharing theirs, for a notebook in the faculty senate office, and you can stop by and look.]
4. Good press. Our support for external peer review shows that we welcome objective validation of our excellence. In these times of budget cuts and in the prevailing (for as long as I’ve been here) general attitude towards faculty, I think we need all the goodwill we can get.

Remarks from Senator Hershfield:

The motion to make external reviews mandatory for tenure ought to be opposed for the following reasons.
1. The proposal imposes yet one more requirement on faculty--however well-intentioned--and this just lessens the latitude that faculty have to conduct their professional careers as they see fit. It is a vital matter of principle that faculty retain as much freedom as possible in their professional lives, and this proposal runs counter to that. Therefore, unless there is compelling evidence of a problem for which this proposal is the best remedy, things should be left as they are. The proponents of this proposal have so far failed to provide evidence of widespread problems (the existence of a few isolated cases does not constitute such evidence). 
2.. The burden of proof in T & P cases is on the candidate; it is the candidate's job to make his/her case for tenure and/or promotion (a point reiterated in several of the deans's comments). This paternalistic proposal flies in the face of this essential feature of the T & P process. 
3. At several points in the supporting text to the motion, we are reminded that there is no guarantee that the successor of a dean who values external reviews will him- herself carry on the policies of his/her predecessor. This is undoubtedly true, but I fail to see how making external reviews mandatory would change any of this. Deans would still be free to give external reviews any weight they like.
4. I'm unsure what potential "goodwill" this policy could have for either the faculty or WSU. Isn't the T & P process supposed to be confidential? So where is the public relations payoff here? Does anyone seriously think that this will make a difference in the attitudes of members of the public to WSU institution or to its faculty?