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
  1. Committee Reports:
  1. 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.

  2. 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.