John Carroll University
Faculty Forum

Chair: Darrell Horwath
Vice Chair: Jerry Moreno
Secretary: Karen Gygli

Minutes for
October 20, 1999 meeting at 4:00 PM
Lombardo Student Center Conference Room

1. Invocation: Fr. Greg Konz
   
2. Minutes of September 16, 1999: The minutes were approved without objection.
   
3. Announcements: Karen Gygli

• • Dick Horwath is recovering quickly from quadruple bypass surgery. He will be back in the classroom next semester, and will probably be attending faculty forum meetings this semester.
  • Doug Bruce has agreed to serve as Faculty Forum Parliamentarian again this year.
  • Robert Mugge, documentary film director, will be speaking at a showing of his film, Deep Blues, this evening at 8PM in this room.
  • Student Union President Melanie Shakarian invited faculty to have lunch with students in the cafeteria this week.
  • On Friday, there will be a basketball game to benefit diabetes research. A faculty team will play a student team.
  • Nancy Campbell announced election results: Mary Ann Flannery and Marc Lynn were elected to the Search Committee for the Dean of the Graduate School and Doris Donnelly was elected to the Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid.

2. Committee Reports:

• • Committee on Academic Policies: Ernie Dezolt reported that CAP has sent out to faculty copies of the proposals on Academic Honesty, Final Exams, and plus/minus grades in the Graduate School. Since open hearings were already held for the Academic Honesty and Final Exam proposals, faculty are asked to respond to these proposals via email: responses on Academic Honesty should be emailed to Pam Mason, and responses on the Final Exam policy should be emailed to Marilynn Collins. Faculty are asked to attend open hearings on the plus/minus graduate school grades with a hard copy of their questions or comments in writing, so that CAP members do not need to take notes but can give faculty their full attention.

  • Committee on Research, Service and Faculty Development: Dwight Hahn reported that Leo Schneider will be organizing meetings to find new ways to recognize and reward teaching.

  • Finance Committee: Joe Kelly reported that the committee met on October 7 to consider the question of whether faculty could opt out of paying into a benefit that they are not using. For example, some faculty members are on a spouse's health plan and might wish to apply their JCU health plan funds to their retirement account instead. However, Jonathan Ivec reported to the committee that that would violate tax laws. The committee then discussed the possibility of a benefits menu and the question of who was using which benefits and who was not. The matter is still under discussion.

  • Rank, Tenure and Salary: Paul Shick gave a preliminary report on the appropriate usage of part time faculty. He handed out a graph of 100 and 300/400 level classes across the university taught by part time faculty which was compiled by the Academic Vice President and the Office of Institutional Research. The graph showed that part time usage has gone up. Committee is planning meeting in late October or early November with David LaGuardia and Fred Travis on this issue. The usage of part time faculty is a complex issue which really needs to be looked into by a committee made up of administration and faculty, especially faculty from the Rank, Tenure and Salary committee. In response to a question, Shick reported that 200 level courses were left off of the graph in the interest of brevity. On the emeritus proposal, Shick reported that this emeritis policy was many years in the making, and was a compromise between the two models most often seen at comparable Ohio universities: automatic emeritus status at retirement versus a rigorous process involving a dossier presentation, similar to promotion and tenure decisions. In response to two questions raised by the Academic Vice President, Shick reported that already retired faculty would not be included under this policy and that this policy would apply to administrators who hold faculty status. There was a motion to accept the emeritus proposal for a vote, which was seconded, so ballots on the proposal will be sent to faculty in the coming weeks. A discussion followed, with questions raised by the Academic Vice President and the Associate Academic Vice President. It was reiterated that emeritus was both an honor and a practical advantage to faculty who were still publishing, that the RTS committee felt strongly that the decision should rest with the department, and that emeritus status should be given to those faculty who showed a career of excellence of research, teaching and service. There would be an appeal process and a grievance process for those turned down for emeritus status.

2. Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Forum Attendance: Laurie Nalepa, Chair, noted that the committee’s report was attached to this Faculty Forum meeting agenda. She thanked the committee for their hard work, which, she reiterated, was not to make recommendations, but to gather information and raise issues related to attendance at Forum meetings. She added that she would like Forum to consider continuing the committee’s efforts. The report was then open for discussion. Nalepa replied to questions that while there was a fairly good response to the survey, the number of responses was too small to be conclusive or to recommend changes in policies. Some information concerning content might be immediately acted upon, however. When asked how she would characterize the tone of the responses, Nalepa stated that she did not wish to speak for the committee, but that it was her opinion that the tone was mainly frustration that the Forum had no real power. Many respondents would like to see different issues brought up at Forum meetings. It was the consensus of the Faculty Forum that this study should be continued. The executive committee of the Forum will look into suggestions concerning how to do things differently in the meetings. Napepa noted that the committee didn’t discuss or vote upon continuing their work, but that it was not a dead issue and the committee would most likely want to continue their work.

3. Other Concerns from the Floor: Jim Lissemore wished to discuss a proposal on funding the new science center. He noted that last Thursday, he also met with Fred Travis about his concerns. Peter Anagnostos, the Vice President for Development, has been working very hard to get funding for the science center. A few weeks ago, he presented possible means of funding with the science departments’ chairs, who verbally presented these ideas to their faculty, and later distributed a written version. One idea for funding which raised concerns among some science faculty, involved a partnership between John Carroll and 5-7 science-based corporations. Lab space in the new building would be dedicated to these corporations and their workers would hold adjunct faculty status, supervising students working in these labs on corporation projects and experiments. Nothing is carved in stone as yet, but it raises some concerns for a number of faculty members. For example, there are labor issues and ethical concerns about how students fit into this plan, how this partnership might be perceived outside the university, how the corporations do business and if these business practices reflect favorably upon John Carroll, a Jesuit Catholic university. Lissemore argued that this plan has broad enough implications for the University, since adjunct faculty status would be given to workers from the corporation supervising students. This project, he argued, would be a pioneering program unlike any other school. The best way to study this, Lissemore argued, might be to create an ad hoc committee which would solicit opinions and information, hold open hearings on the matter and report back to the faculty, without making any recommendations so that the discussion could be held in the most civil, open and positive way possible. A motion was made and seconded that an ad hoc committee be formed to solicit opinions, thoughts and concerns on the JCCI (John Carroll Cooperation with Industry) proposal, holding open hearings and reporting back to the faculty without recommendations. The motion was then discussed. When asked if he had discussed his concerns with Peter Anagnostos, Lissemore replied that he had sent Anagnostos a lengthy email but has not yet met with Anagnostos face to face. When asked if this proposal indicated that the science building was having difficulty being funded, Lissemore answered that no, that did not seem to be the case. When asked why the committee should be formed to discuss the plan without making recommendations, Lissemore answered that there was no need—the JCCI proposal is still under discussion, and some of the controversial elements have been changed, such as adjuct faculty status for corporate employees. Also, an ad hoc committee might be better than CAP because an ad hoc committee would not be as overburdened as CAP presently is. A timetable for the committee was then discussed, with Lissemore asking that the work be carried out by the end of the semester. It was stated from the floor that the proposal is a logical extension of a practice already existing between John Carroll and the Cleveland Clinic, and that this proposal has been the subject of many discussions. It is premature and inappropriate to bring the matter to the Forum because the science faculty members need to discuss it further. For example, the science faculty has already discussed the need for an oversight committee. Lissemore argued that this proposal was more than just "an idea floating around." Draft wording had changed with no faculty input. There was a discussion over whether this proposal was simply a grant proposal that should only be discussed by the science faculty, or if it had broader academic concerns. Lissemore argued that while curricular changes are only discussed in the departments concerned, Faculty Forum does discuss concentrations. While a cooperative relationship with a non-profit agency might be compatible with John Carroll’s mission, a cooperative relationship with a for-profit corporation might compromise perceptions of John Carroll. The committee would need the newest version of the proposal. The question was called and a motion was made to create an ad hoc committee to look into JCCI without making recommendations. The motion was seconded on and was approved by a majority of faculty. Jerry Moreno asked that any faculty members interested in serving on the committee submit their name to Moreno by next Monday afternoon. The Executive Committee of the Faculty Forum would then meet and choose faculty to be on the committee. There will also be a mailing to all faculty members announcing the ad hoc committee.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 PM.