Lehigh University

MINUTES OF THE FACULTY MEETING

(Sinclair Auditorium)

October 29, 2007

Presiding: President Alice Gast

President Gast called the meeting to order at 4:10 PM.

1.  Minutes: The September 24, 2007, minutes were approved by the Faculty unanimously.

2.  Introduction of New Full-time Faculty: Provost Mohamed El-Aasser introduced two new colleagues who were not able to be present at the previous meeting: Iveta Silova (Education and Human Services) and Tae Sup Yun (Civil and Environmental Engineering).

3.  Committee Motions:

Graduate and Research Committee (See end materials included with these minutes.)

Professor John Smith made the following motions:

a). College of Education – Changes in the Teaching, Learning, and Technology (TLT) Program for program requirements, the addition of five new courses and some editorial changes such as course titles and descriptions. This was seconded by a faculty member.

Prof. Gunter asked if the program changes were only for COE courses or were there implications for other colleges. Prof. Cates responded that only the TLT program was affected. Prof. Sivakumar asked, because only COE was affected, did the entire faculty have to vote on the changes. As a long-time R&P “keeper-upper” for the faculty, Prof. Gunter responded emphatically that this was indeed the case under our current form of governance. Hearing no further discussion, President Gast called for the vote, which passed unanimously.

b). College of Education – The new Center for Urban Leadership had been proposed at the May, 2007, faculty meeting and briefly noted at the September, 2007, faculty meeting. Prof. Smith noted that the title of the center had changed to the “Center for Developing Urban Leaders.” Prof. Deily commented that the faculty does not have to approve a new center’s formation because the GRC has the mandate for such approvals. This has already been given, so at most, the only role in a full faculty meeting that we have is for discussion. Prof. Gunter asked if new faculty hires would be needed for the Center. Prof. George White answered that a new director would be hired, but no academic budgeting was required for this person who would be funded through research and endowment. Prof. Eades noted that endowment does not automatically allow extra faculty slots, and a request for a new position must be made. Prof. White agreed. No further action was taken on this, following Prof. Deily’s suggestion.

c). RCEAS – The proposed Masters of Engineering In Structural Engineering was seconded by Prof. Pessiki. Prof. George White asked what the RCEAS resource implications were for a new MS program. Prof.Pessiki replied that most of the courses are already on the books and taught by current faculty. A Professor of Practice will teach three courses in design. The existing laboratories will handle the new students’ lab component. If no new faculty will be required, Prof. White questioned what would existing faculty not do in order to accommodate this new program. Prof. Wilson replied that existing courses, other than design, would be taught less frequently or not at all. Prof. Lennon noted that this program was designed to increase enrollments from net new students, not now coming to Lehigh. With no further discussion desired by the faculty, the program was approved unanimously.

Faculty Personnel Committee: (See end materials included with these minutes.)

Professor Mike Kolchin presented the motion for the Revision of R&P 1.2.2.6 (Description of Faculty Personnel Committee) which consisted of deleting the passage about under-represented groups (recommended by outside counsel, including AAUP) and some recent wording changes. Prof. Deily seconded the motion. Prof. Gunter inquired whether an amendment would be appropriate to strike one paragraph and add 2 brief changes to include a statement about would monitor faculty equality issues if there was no mention of how under-representative groups would be included for committee composition. Prof. Kolchin responded that this was precisely the problem addressed in this motion, to remove specific language about under-representation in order to reduce Lehigh’s possible exposure to reverse discrimination charges. Thus, no amendment was needed because there are other avenues to monitor problems in this area, such as a direct faculty appeals to the FPC. Prof. Moglen added that existing remedies also include, for example, the University Ombudsperson and the Harassment Policy Officer.

Deputy Provost and Professor Jean Soderlund proposed a brief correction for the formal title of the Provost from “Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs” to “Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.” This was accepted by Prof. Kolchin and the corrected motion passed unanimously

Prof. Kolchin asked President Gast if he could also present the one discussion item out of the order of the agenda. She agreed.

He then presented the Revision of 2.2.6.13 – Administration’s recommendation, for discussion. The main issue is the nature and definition of a “faculty recommendation” on a faculty colleague’s promotion and/or tenure decision, and once it is made formally in the P&T process, can it be changed? Prof. Kolchin conferred with Prof. Mundhenk, one of the few remaining members on the committee who proposed the original R&P wording and confirmed that the original sense or intent was for a single meeting among the Provost, college P&T committee and the originating department members. The FPC will draft new language and bring a revised proposal to the faculty in the near future. Prof. Kolchin asked for faculty comments at this point and reminded everyone to use the Blackboard discussion board for the FPC if anyone thinks of a comment after today’s meeting. No action was taken at this time on this agenda item.

R & P Subcommittee (See end materials included with these minutes.)

Professor Lopresti presented the motion to require two readings for motions involving changes to R & P; this would change R&P 1.1.2. Rather than requiring a written notification to the faculty of proposed R&P changes, they “must be made available” to the faculty, possibly electronically through the Faculty Blackboard access. Also included is the note that an amendment from the floor of a faculty meeting does not have to have a second reading in order to avoid the circularity of reductio ad absurdum. Prof. Lopresti also noted that original wording remains in this R&P item that this restriction can be waived by a two-thirds majority of the members present. Prof. Eades asked if the new wording includes the possibility of electronic voting and Prof. Shapiro replied that the faculty had previously passed such a motion. Prof. Sivakumar asked who can propose a change in R&P? Again, Prof. Shapiro responded that any faculty member can do so.

Prof. Gunter proposed an “unfriendly” amendment to strike the sentence “Any and all of these restrictions may be waived …” because it is redundant with the general process of faculty meetings. Prof. Nagel asked what constitutes a “quorum.” Prof. Kay, our ever-ready parliamentarian, responded that, until a quorum is called for by a faculty member present at a meeting, the quorum is defined as those present. Once is a quorum called, then it is defined to be one-third of the registered faculty of the University. Up to that point, any business already conducted is still appropriate and officially completed. After that quorum call, if one-third of the faculty are present, then business can continue and votes on proposals held. If not, while issues can be discussed, no formal votes may be taken. Prof. Thornton opined that he is in favor of retaining this sentence as a good reminder to the faculty of the existence of such rules. Prof. Kay pointed out that it is only partially redundant (laughter from the colleagues). President Gast, in bringing the proposed amendment to a vote, quickly reminded everyone that this must be an “unfriendly” one (to further laughter). The amendment drew nays that were far in excess of the aye(s), so the motion was defeated.

[Secretary’s note: Prof. Kay, our parliamentarian, strongly urges that the adjectives “friendly” or “unfriendly” not be used because they are not descriptors for an amendment that have any procedural bearing. An “amendment” is a change in the proposal’s substance, which must be approved by a vote. A “friend” of the motion should contact the mover before he or she makes the motion and suggest alternate wording to improve the motion’s clarity or grammar. A faculty member could also suggest such a change in language from the floor that is acceptable to the mover; however, this must be done before the proposal is moved.]

Returning to the main motion for two readings, Prof. Gunter continued his opposition noting both that we can already postpone a motion (not wishing to use the now Lehigh politically incorrect “table”) and that this proposed change will reduce faculty flexibility. Prof. Nagel supported the change to allow for the norm of thoughtful reflection on any change to R&P. Hearing no further discussion, President Gast called the question, which was approved by an overwhelming majority of “Ayes,” prompting her comment on how close the vote was (again, more laughter from everyone).

4. Unfinished Business (None)

5. New Business: (See end materials included with these minutes.)

Ombuds Officer’s Report: (See end materials included with these minutes.)

President Gast called on Prof. Munley to present his report to the faculty. This has not been a regular report to the faculty, but President Gast thought it was important that we begin hearing regularly, perhaps at least annually, from the University Ombuds Officer, in order to keep the faculty current with issues and problems that arise in our community. Prof. Munley called three important patterns to the attention of the faculty that he has observed over his past five years in this position. The first was that a person contacting him about fair treatment often cited gender, especially from women, as a significant basis for inequity. The second pattern addressed faculty relationships in the treatment of graduate students. Finally, the perceived hierarchical culture of the University has appeared to interfere with the type of problem mediation that is acceptable to anyone who needs to challenge a higher level of authority.

Prof. Neti asked whether the proportion of faculty vs. staff complaints or contacts with the Ombuds Officer were approximately the same. Prof. Munley replied that because he keeps no written records of contacts, it is difficult for him to give any precision to an answer. Prof. Neti followed with question about how Lehigh compares with other schools. Prof. Munley responded that a number of schools have several staff members serving with the Ombuds Officer to resolve problems. He cited the VA Tech tragedy as an example of the forces that are pushing other schools to enlarge their ombudsperson’s duties to include the evaluation of new prevention policies and their effectiveness on campuses.

6. Committee Reports (None, given Prof. Kolchin’s earlier repositioning of FPC’s item.)

7. President’s Report: President Gast announced that the LU Alert system now has 40% of the faculty and 60% of the students who have voluntarily signed up, providing their cell phone numbers. There will be a test later this semester to evaluate the effectiveness of the system.

The October Board of Trustees meeting was the third with a specific educational focus, “Faculty and Tenure: Perspectives form the National Landscape and Lehigh.” This new format brought these topics to raise the BOT’s understanding of important issues to faculty and administrators in the operation of a high quality university in the 21st century. The President’s objective was to help the trustees understand the tenure process, the work and the role of a faculty member. In this way, the trustees support would be well-informed for our planning for, recruitment and retention of faculty. The Provost’s Office, Provost El- Aasser and Deputy Provosts Moses and Soderlund, provided information packets to the participants in order to promote discussion among the BOT, 17 faculty members and a number of staff members. These materials will also be posted on the Provost’s Web site.

Dr. Cathy Trower, Co-PI and research associate at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education initiated the discussion with an overall view of the US viewpoint on tenure, academic freedom and the distribution of tenure-track vs. non-tenure-track faculty at private universities. Lehigh has about 7% non-tenure-track faculty compared to 24% nationally. There were presentations for the whole group as well as break-out sessions, each subgroup facilitated by a trustee and a faculty member. Prof. Sands, for example, made a presentation to the large group on the tenure process from hiring to tenure and promotion. The Deputy Provosts presented “Blackboard2Blackboard,” a review of key changes over the past 40 years since many of the key trustees were students and also spanning a typical period of a tenured faculty member’s time at Lehigh. This provided a perspective on the planning process for changes required over the next 40 years at Lehigh. President Gast intends to use this same BOT meeting structure at the upcoming Spring, 2008, BOT meetings: February ’08, “Student Life and Learning,” about the bridge necessary to life-long intellectual development; May ’08, “Enrolling Strategically,” from where we envision future students will come and how to be strategic in making enrollment decisions. Faculty will be included in these sessions and anyone interested in participating, or who has ideas about these topics should contact President Gast.