Minutes of the March 16th, 2006 Faculty Assembly Meeting

McMullen 212

 

  1. R. Stephens called the meeting to order at 3:05pm.

 

  1. Opening prayer lead by R. Stephens (Reading of Prayer for Lent from Fr. Adam)

 

  1. Approval of the minutes from the February 9th meeting.  (Moved and seconded by J. Barr and B. Jacobson.)  J. Van Speybroeck moved to strike point #8 from the minutes.  D. Marple did not disapprove of point #8 concerning him.  Minutes were approved in their original state.  J. Van Speybroeck opposed. 

 

  1. E. Rogalski and E. Littig presented the plans and building concepts for the Health Science Center. 

 

    1. E. Rogalski announced that on April 6th in the afternoon the campus community will have the opportunity to meet with and provide input to the consultants for the president search
    2. E. Rogalski shared chapel renovation update. 
    3. E. Rogalski announced that the New Health Science Center will be located on the corner of Marquette and Lombard.  A total of $2.3 million has been donated by Genesis in the land and funding for building.
    4. E. Littig share architectural design pictures of the new Center and noted the changes in square footage.  Originally, the design was for 50,000 square feet.  This has been raised to 57,000 square feet.  Budget growth has changed as a result to 12.4 to 12.6 million.  $6, 400,000 has been raised to date, and the University is anticipating the securing of significant donations to meet the 12.6 goal. 
    5. D. Hilden noted the storage space that will be available at the new Center.
    6. S. Cassady noted the opportunities for continuing education at the new Center.
    7. P. Wenthe noted the labs and patient simulation rooms and equipment will provide real-life medical experiences for students.  Also noted room for small and large class sizes.
    8. M. Hustedde asked who will maintain the building, and E. Rogalski stated that SAU has signed a 99 year lease for the building and will be responsible for its maintenance.
    9. E. Rogalski said there was room for growth with the new Center.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher said there was not room for growth in the building.  All space has been accounted for with current needs.  D. Hilden confirmed, but said the program would be growing in the future. 
    10. Fr. Gant asked about current Hayes Hall space.  E. Rogalski said there were many requests for this space.  Priority will go to faculty in the basement of Davis Hall.  There is also mention to accommodate space for the expanding faculty and courses in the natural sciences as well as returning seminary residency back to Hayes Hall. 
    11. E. Rogalski thanked the faculty for their work and wished them a blessed Easter.

 

  1. J. Stauff presented Faculty Handbook revisions for Section 1 (1st reading) and Section 4 (2nd reading). 
    1. J. Stauff noted that this was the first reading of section 1 (Univ. Organization and Governance).  He noted the section was easy to revise, especially with the help and expertise of Fr. McDaniel and his recent work on the history of SAU.
    2. J. Stauff noted 1.1.7.  The list of university accreditations and memberships were updated.
    3. J. Stauff noted 1.9.  The Committees of the university were updated by E. Rogalski
    4. J. Stauff noted 1.8.1.  The Evaluation of Administrators was changed to develop a system of evaluation that is meaningful to the campus community and the administrators.  R. Stephens noted she’ll be sharing information on joining a committee to carry-out such changes during “new business” on the agenda.
    5. L. Sanborne requested to strike VP for Academic Support Services from 1.7.2.2.5 because the position no longer exists.
    6. P. Koch noted the update of the name North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (not Secondary Schools) in 1.1.7
    7. D. Hilden noted that there needs to be some way of giving comment to administrators in off-cycle years of evaluation.
    8. R. Stephens noted that these forms will be moved to online.  P. Koch added that security measures will be in place to provide anonymity of faculty responses.
    9. M. Waterstreet asked if all administrators would be evaluated on the same years, or if there would be an alternating schedule.  J. Staff said the evaluations would be staggered. 
    10. B. Jacobson moved to approve the changes to Section 1.  Seconded by A.  Kaiser.  Motion carried.
    11. J. Stauff presented second reading of Section 2.  C. Stephens motioned to approve.  B. Du Bois seconded. 
    12. C. Stephens requested the removal of the underlining of the text as a formatting issue.  She also asked who would be the webmaster for updating faculty committee changes on the web.
    13. P. Koch stated that Devendra Shrikhande should be in charge of such updates. 
    14. Motion to accept Section 4 carried. 
    15. R. Stephens announced a special Faculty Assembly meeting on March 30th for the presentation of Section 3.

 

  1. S. Cassady and Fr. Grant lead a discussion on characteristics/qualities to be considered by the search committee for the new university president.
    1. R. Stephens provided the search committee with a list of names for faculty representation.  S. Cassady and Fr. Grant were chosen. 
    2. J. Barr asked S. Cassady and Fr. Grant to explain their relationship to the search committee.  Fr. Grant said he had no idea.  S. Cassady said they would be involved until the finalists were brought to campus. 
    3. Fr. Dunn explained that in the past the firm has uncovered the candidates, faculty help to choose the candidates, and the Board makes the decision. 
    4. P. Jacobson – someone with teaching experience and academic experience
    5. T. Schlabach – someone who represents us well in the community and is a good fundraiser. 
    6. A. Swift – someone with teaching experience isn’t as important, but nice to have.  Rather values communication, management, and fundraising skills.
    7. L. Rodrigues-Fisher – doesn’t have to be teaching, but needs to have academic experience.
    8. P. Koch – someone who is demonstrative of the role of faculty.
    9. Fr. Dunn – someone who understands and is committed to the mission and history of the institution. 
    10. S. Cassady – someone who’s coming from a similar place.
    11. D. Hilden – someone with a vision.
    12. A. Swift – someone who can articulate an understanding of the liberal arts.
    13. L. Bell – someone with a demonstrable understanding of the liberal arts.
    14. J. Correa-Kaiser – someone with experience as an administrator.
    15. J. Barr – someone with small institutional experience.
    16. D. Hilden – someone with professional program experiences.
    17. A. Swift – How competitive are we going to be?  Salary?
    18. L. Rodrigues-Fisher – that would be a Board decision.
    19. M. Levson – we should look at model schools and the characteristics of their presidents.
    20. R. Dye – someone who is ambitious about elevating the academic community.
    21. E. Pogue – someone who is visible in the community, but on campus and available to students.
    22. L. Sanborne – someone who has a philosophy of openness and transparency in decision-making. 
    23. J. Van Speybroeck asked if they need to be Catholic.  Fr. Grant stated that they most likely had to be.
    24. P. Koch – someone who understands the relationship with the Diocese and understands Catholicism.
    25. Fr. Grant asked if there were characteristics or qualities to avoid.
    26. L. Rodriguez-Fisher asked if the person needed a terminal degree.  Fr. Dunn stated that such a degree makes sense but is not necessary.   The degree should also come from an accredited institution (not Phoenix online)
    27. T. Burns – someone who’s not leaving a history of scandal.
    28. R. Stephens reminded faculty of April 6th meeting.

 

  1. R. Ristow presented the revisions for the Clinical Tenure-Track Faculty Proposal from the College of Education and Health Sciences. 
    1. R. Ristow announced that the committee met to address the changes requested at the previous Faculty Assembly meeting regarding clinical track faculty. 
    2. L. Rodrigues-Fisher expressed concern for current proposal stating that it looked like a job description and did not give PTS guidance for evaluation. 
    3. P. Wenthe stated that there would be no difference in evaluation, so the clinical track faculty would follow the faculty handbook regarding promotion, tenure, and standards. 
    4. L. Rodrigues-Fisher requested the addition of requiring clinical track faculty to have clinical evaluations and maintain clinical certification. 
    5. P. Koch stated that such positions need to be accounted for with current changes to the faculty evaluations that are taking place. 
    6. B. Du Bois noted the proposal was a general definition to cover a variety of fields.  Appointment letters would have the specifics of the position requirements. 
    7. K. Kelly noted that he was not comfortable going forward with a vote at this time.
    8. R. Ristow stated that the clinical position has to be defined by the field.  The committee for the proposal tried to take what faculty wanted which was less specificity.  Now he’s hearing that they want more.  At this time he is not sure as to where or how to proceed. 
    9. P. Koch moved to accept the document as a concept and to have the committee develop standards for evaluation.  A. Swift seconded. 
    10. J. Van Speybroeck called the question.  Motion carried. 

 

  1. R. Stephens announced the need for faculty volunteers to serve on the committees 1) to evaluate administrators and 2) serve as the selection committee for next years Faculty Assembly Chair-Elect. Interested parties should contact R. Stephens directly. 

 

  1. T. Burns moved to adjourn the meeting.  Seconded by K. Kelly.  Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm.