MINUTES SECOND MEETING of the Executive Committee of the Villanova University Senate for Academic Year 2007-08 on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 in  CEER  in Room 210 at 1:00 P.M.

  

PRESENT:      Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, Chairperson; Dr. Sohail S. Chaudhry; Mr. Robert Dormish; Dr. Helen K. Lafferty; Dr. Lowell S. Gustafson; Mr. Brian M. Murray, Executive Secretary; Mrs. Mary Quilter; Mr. John Von Euw; Fr. John P. Stack, OSA,

Ms. Helen Heron, Recording Secretary

                     

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

AGENDA:

I          APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 10, 2007 MEETING

II        ANNOUNCEMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE

III       DISCUSSION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE'S FUTURE MEETING DATES AND TIMES FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2007-2008

IV        PREPARATION OF THE AGENDA FOR THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 SENATE MEETING

V         DISCUSS DEFINITION OF COLLEGIAL GOVERNANCE

VI        CONSIDERATION OF SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

VII       CONSIDERATION OF REPORT FROM THE RULES AND REVIEW COMMITTEE on the EVALUATION OF THE SENATE

VIII     SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE SPEAKERS AND ITEMS FOR BLUEPRINTS

IX        NEW BUSINESS

_________________________________________________________________________________ ____

 

The Executive Committee Chair, Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, welcomed all members to the start of a new academic year.

 

I.                   The minutes of the May 10, 2007 meeting were unanimously approved by the committee as recorded.

 

II.                ANNOUNCEMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE

 

a)  Ann Diebold is scheduled to be guest speaker at the October 26, 2007 meeting

 

b)  The Committee appointed Dr. James M. Emig, Accountancy, to fill the vacancy on the Athletic Advisory Committee.  They also agreed to fill Kelly Donio Eastland’s position on the Committee of Mission and Social Justice with Ms. Susan Ciccione.  Both candidates were sent formal letters notifying them of their new positions.

 

c)  Dr. Mackey-Kallis pointed out that we did remand to our Rules and Review Committee consideration of the possibility of increasing staff participation in governance.  This resulted from a conversation with Father Peter. A sub-committee was formed, which met over the summer, and was chaired by John Stofey.  A report was done with approximately 50-60 people involved including John Kelley.   After two meetings with this committee a set of recommendations was sent to the Executive Committee. A copy of this report was given to each member.   

              

 

III.       EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FUTURE MEETING DATES AND TIMES FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2007-08:

 

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 – 9:30 A.M.

Friday, November 9, 2007 – 3:00 P.M.

 

 

IV.      PREPARATION OF THE AGENDA FOR THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 SENATE MEETING

 

        AGENDA

 

SENATE SOCIAL – 3:30 P.M.

 

INVOCATION – DR SOHAIL C. CHAUDHRY

 

1.            APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the May 10, 2007 Meeting

 

2.           POWER OF INTERPELLATION                            

             The Committee agreed to send questions submitted by Senators Dormish

             and Murray regarding the academic calendar to Dr. Johannes for a response with the hope that he will have an answer for the Senate meeting.            

 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATORS BRIAN M. MURRAY AND ROBERT B. DORMISH REGARDING THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR

  

a) What is the process by which the academic calendar is constructed and who is involved in this process?

 

b) Specifically, what process is used to determine the number of reading days granted students and faculty for each academic semester?

 

c) What is the rationale behind the number of reading days granted students and faculty each academic semester?

 

 

RESPONSE:

 

The matter of the academic calendar, and particularly that of reading days, comes before the Senate with some regularity.  It is also a topic of more than passing interest from students, their parents, faculty, and a number of University administrators.

 

(a)  Membership.  The academic calendar is determined by the Academic Calendar Committee, which makes a recommendation to the Academic Policy Committee of the Senate, whose recommendation ultimately goes to the President.  The Calendar Committee consists of the following people or, often, their delegates:  Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President and Associate Vice President for Student Life, Vice President for Administration and Finance, the Deans of the four undergraduate colleges and of the Law School, Dean of Graduate Studies in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Dean of Enrollment Management, Director of Admissions, Dean of Students, Director of Facilities Management, Director of Campus Ministry, Director of Part-time Studies and Summer Sessions, , Director of Athletics, the Registrar, the Bursar, the SGA President, and the Academic Vice President and Registrar from Rosemont.

 

(b) Process.  The process involves a four year approval cycle whereby academic calendars for the next three years have been approved and the one for the following year is given tentative approval.  That way, everyone knows the schedules in the “out” years as well as for the next year. 

 

The committee meets each spring to give final approval to one year’s calendar and tentative approval to the next one, maintaining a rolling average of four fully or tentatively approved academic calendars.  Each calendar presented to the committee has been drafted by the VPAA and his staff, following a set of principles that are long-standing but not always compatible.   Among those principles are:

 

1) Each academic semester consists of fourteen weeks of classes, (a) with a total of 70 class days, (b) with (insofar as possible) the same number of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday classes, and (c) with the same number of class hours (2100) for each three credit course.  To maintain equality among class days, the University reverts to “deeming” one day (e.g., Monday) to be another (e.g., Tuesday) at the end of a semester.

2)  To accommodate laboratory courses, there should be twelve “full and contiguous” (i.e., undivided five day) weeks plus a thirteenth week of five class days that are divided by a holiday (Thanksgiving and Easter).

3)  May commencement should be the Sunday before the Sunday before Memorial Day. It should be preceded by a “senior week” following final exams.

4)  Exams in the fall term should not intrude unduly on Christmas vacation, so generally we try to complete the fall term no later than December 21.

5) There are six days of final exams each semester.

6) We must provide for a spring and a fall break; for “off” days on Labor Day, Wednesday through Friday of Thanksgiving week, Martin Luther King Day, and Thursday through Monday of Easter.

7)  There should be at least one (in theory two) reading days before final exams.

8)  A reasonable mid-term date must be set, both to provide timely assessments back to students and to begin the formal academic advising period.

9) Within the calendar, there are additional requirements:  setting the day for final withdrawal from courses without penalty, appropriate advising periods, etc.

 

Meeting these goals is not always possible, depending on the peculiarities of a given year’s calendar.

 

The design of the calendar begins with setting the commencement date in May and working backwards from that date, taking into consideration the necessities of exam week, senior week, Easter vacation, spring break, and, in recent years, Martin Luther King Day.  Thus we reach the beginning day of the spring term.  For fall, we seek to conclude final exams as early as feasible without – having taken into consideration the need for fall break, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving – beginning classes too early in August.  Normally, once the end dates of each semester are set, the rest of the calendar falls out quite automatically, leaving no options whatsoever. 

 

One issue of concern is the time between semesters, during which the colleges undertake academic standing reviews, send out notices to students, dismiss some students, receive and adjudicate their appeals, and receive and consider applications for transfers from one college to another.  These must be done enough in advance of the beginning of the second semester to facilitate students’ transfers and other needs. 

 

Facilities repair issues, residence hall refurbishment in May and the August preparation for fall term, schedules for summer conferences and other activities, summer school schedules, students’ summer internships and summer job situations, and other matters push from both ends of the academic calendar.  Thus, in the end, there are very few if any options available in any given calendar.  Solutions to our annual “calendar crisis” -- so as to enable us to start each semester later, end it sooner, reinstate a second reading day, or provide any other days off -- would include canceling fall and/or spring breaks, holding classes on Labor Day and Martin Luther King Day, cutting short Thanksgiving or Easter holidays, running fall final exams up as late as December 23, canceling senior week, or reducing the length of the academic semesters.

 

(c) Reading Days.   A longstanding agreement provided for two reading days each semester.  That agreement conflicted with the longer, 14 week, semester that was established in the early nineties, and with the Labor Day and Martin Luther King holidays.  Given the conflict, the University has been forced to reduce the number of reading days to one.  The most recent reduction followed an explicit Senate agreement to establish Martin Luther King Day as a University holiday.  

 

Calendar design literally is a simple matter of arithmetic, once one accepts the basic principles relating to the number of class days and the targeted end days for each semester.  Thus the number of reading days is not “decided” each year; rather, it is dictated by the imperatives mentioned above.  To add more reading days, we must change the principles that guide calendar determination.

 

(d) Rationale.  As indicated above, the rationale for the number of reading days simply is the calendar arithmetic.  Often, it should be noted, a reading day falls shortly before a weekend, providing (if students study on Sunday, when there are no exams) a de facto second reading day.  

 

3.     ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE

                      

4.      INTRODUCTION OF NEW SENATORS

 

          Professor Joseph Dellapenna – Parliamentarian

 

          Mr. Stephen Fugale – UNIT – Chief Information Officer

         

          Mr. Vincent Nicastro – Director of Athletics

 

          Mr. Michael Powers – Dining Services

 

          Mr. John Smock – President VUAA

 

5.       REPORT FROM FACULTY CONGRESS – GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

          Presented by Dr. Lowell Gustafson

 

6.       REPORT FROM STUDENT GOVERNMENT PRESIDENT – GOALS AND OBJECTIVES – Mr. John Von Euw

 

7.      SENATE DISCUSSION OF THE DEFINITION OF COLLEGIAL GOVERNANCE

 

8.      SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS and BLUEPRINT ARTICLES

 

9.      NEW BUSINESS 

 

 

V.    DEFINITION OF COLLEGIAL GOVERNANCE

         

           Dr. Mackey-Kallis felt we should decide whether we want this incorporated into our Constitution.  Dr. Lafferty pointed out that it is posted on our web site. She stated that for our Middle States update we needed to supply them with the definition of Collegiality.  She acknowledged that this was a tentative definition.  Dr. Mackey-Kallis read the last paragraph of the Definition of Collegiality and explained why this paragraph was included.  It covered special circumstances where certain protocols were potentially not followed.  In those cases the definition insured that there would be a mechanism for explaining why, i.e. a crisis situation would be an example of  decision making which would not follow the normal principal of subsidiary. 

 

Dr. Gustafson pointed out that the constitution states how the senate should function. It does not include philosophical statements, and, as such, the Definition for Collegial Governance might not be best suited for inclusion in the constitution.

 

Dr. Lafferty stated that the definition was sent to the APBC (Administration Planning and Budget Committee), but was not approved and instead was sent back with recommendations for revision. The APBC has subsequently been dissolved. Dr. Mackey-Kallis felt that since Middle States will again be inquiring about this subject, perhaps we should investigate it further. 

 

Dr. Chung confirmed that this was the final statement and that it was called “Definition of Collegial Governance”.  It was decided to list the “Definition of Collegial Governance” on the Agenda for the September Senate meeting and to have a general discussion of how best to employ the definition.  

 

 

VI.        CONSIDERATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER MEETING WITH THE

            PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD

 

           

                PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT

 

 

1.  I was wondering why the handicapped access to the roads is not at the road crossing where the stripes are painted.  The handicapped access is usually a few feet away from where the stripes are painted.  I have seen people in cars get angry with handicapped people crossing at the handicapped access and not at the striped area.  I am referring to the steps in front of the library, on the main drive.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

2. a) I would like to know if Villanova would consider changing the five year work period required for tuition exchange to three years to coincide with the tuition remission program.

 

b) Parking permits which we pay $125 should be good to park any where on campus without incurring parking tickets.

 

c) Long term care insurance and Cobra costs should be able to be deducted from paychecks.

 

d) 4 years tuition exchange w/3 yr waiting period of employment - same benefit as tuition remission except at any college or university participating in the program

 

e) If an employee's child is attending a state school, which is not a part of the consortium, that Villanova would consider making a lump sum payment of say $14,000 in lieu of the tuition exchange program.  Swarthmore College provides a lump sum payment instead of being a part of the tuition exchange program. 

 

 

3. Our short term disability doesn’t take effect for 90 days.   When I had surgery and found out the tumor they removed was cancer, I was more afraid of losing my home than the chemo treatments.  I couldn't make the mortgage payments without any money coming it went into foreclosure. Lucky there is a state emergency fund that gave me a second mortgage so the children and I still had a roof over our heads. 

 

It's been a couple of years now but that foreclosure still shows up on my credit report.  I was turned down to co-sign my son's student loan because of it.  Half of all bankruptcies in this country are caused by working people who get sick.  Now I can't buy life or disability insurance since I was already sick once.  It is very expensive insurance even for people who have never gotten sick yet. 

 

Could you just see if the 90 day waiting period could be shortened to a few weeks or even a month?  Most of the other companies I have worked for had disability insurance which started after just a few days; of course I never needed it then.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

4. My concern for a couple years has been "the steps/stairs at Dougherty Hall" they are extremely dirty. They also need a paint job which would make a big difference.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

5. I would like the following two things considered at the meeting.

     

    a) Tuition exchange is available after 3 years for a full 4 year term.

   

    b) The parking permit that costs $125, be usable campus wide without getting

         ticketed.    

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

6. I'd like to suggest the topic of tuition exchange be discussed and if it would be possible to have that benefit for four years-working at VU for five years or less; my daughter received tuition exchange for her first two years of college and was offered tuition exchange for her third year by the school she is attending, however, since Villanova's policy is that you must work for ten years to have three or more years of tuition exchange, and I have been here seven years, my daughter was not granted this benefit.  It is a great benefit but I believe it could be improved. 

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

7. a) Is the university reviewing its security in the light of lessons learned at Virginia Tech.  I’ve looked carefully at the                                                  

        statements that have been made so far.  The ones I’ve seen have stopped well- short of promising a review.

  

b)  Why can’t a lot of classroom doors be locked from the inside?  It‘s a simple precaution-what can a “lockdown” mean

      if you can’t secure your classroom?                  

 

 c)  How many security guards do we actually have and what do they do?  Shouldn’t they be showing a higher profile

       around campus?     

 

 

d)  Are we seeking expert advice on this?  The police may have suggestions to offer on campus security.  Are we         

     talking with other universities who are reviewing their security?  I know Drexel and St. Joseph’s have said they

     will be looking into making their campuses safer.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

8. Now that eligibility for tuition remission is 80% after 3 years of employment, are those employees, who were hired under the 5 year eligibility policy, going to be reimbursed or credited 80% of the full tuition paid for dependents attending Villanova?  Also, will the same employees be reimbursed or credited the difference between 80% and the percentage received, i.e. approximately 74% & 76% under the old plan?

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The Committee decided that all questions would be sent to Mr. Kenneth Valosky. It was decided that the policy of the Committee would be that the names of those submitting any questions will not appear in print or on the web, unless otherwise specified by the person.

 

      VII   CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT FROM THE RULES AND REVIEW COMMITTEE on the EVALUATION OF THE SENATE

 

The Committee read over the report.  Dr. Gustafson felt as though the report corresponded very well with the Collegial statement.  Dr. Mackey-Kallis agreed that although we do not legislate, we do have a forum whereby we can discuss and send a motion in the form of “advice” to the President and Board of Trustees.

 

The topic of speakers and the length of time they are given for their presentations were discussed. A decision was made that when a speaker is invited to present to the Senate, that we strongly encourage them to adhere to these speaker guidelines regarding time.

 

The evaluation also noted the lack of attendance at some of the meetings.   The Chair suggested that we read Article XVIII in the Constitution which states the rules regarding absences on the Agenda at the next senate meeting.  At the same time, sending each Chairperson the same Article reminding their members of the importance of attendance. 

 

Father Stack pointed out the benefit of the Senate is that for all of the various constituencies to vent or send an opinion to the President.  He feels as though the value is in communication.  Dr. Gustafson agreed that we must clarify this legislative role vs. the advisory role.  The words we use should correspond with what are the Villanova principals.  He stated that legislatures are decision makers and we are not. However, this language implies that we are. He thinks if we affirm and value each other’s position, we see ourselves as a communication body.

Dr. Mackey-Kallis thinks we need to find out if this is the will of the Senate to move towards the language of recommendation in the Constitution rather than in the legislation.  Talk about the pros and cons, talk about the recommendations from Rules and Review and if they support that, then we basically send it to Rules and Review to re-write the places of our constitution to put in the language related to recommendation rather than the words related to legislation.

 

Father Stack suggested that perhaps this is the topic that we should be discussing with the Board of Trustees.  Maybe with a new president the Board will state the role of the Senate. At that point, we can go back and fix the language so that it says what we really do.

 

Dr. Lafferty suggested that when we have our meetings with the Board and the President we should explain to them the particular issues that we have concern over and would like to know where they stand with these issues. For example, what does the Board feel about our retreat in Maryland where Father Peter has convened four groups to work on four areas? She believes both the Board and the Senate should participate in these discussions with us.

 

The Chair pointed out that the new protocol is that we get the questions from the university because we want them to have an Ombudsman in the form of the Senate to get answers to their questions.  She stated that we will review them and gather a set of questions for the Board.

 

Father Stack suggested that we initially have a meeting with the President and not the Board so that we can see how he feels the Senate fits in as he moves on.  The Committee agreed whole-heartedly with his suggestion.

 

VIII.     SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE SPEAKERS

 

A brief update from Bob Morro regarding the new construction on campus. 

     

Ask Ken Valosky what an appropriate time for him would be to attend a Senate meeting so that he may present a status report on the Benefits Review Committee in this academic year.

 

IX.   NEW BUSINESS

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:02 P.M.

 

                                                                      

Sincerely,

 

                                                                       Brian M. Murray

                                                                        Executive Secretary

 

 

BMM/hh