JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY

Minutes of Faculty Forum Meeting

Thursday, September 16, 2004

LSC Conference Room

 

 

Ernie Dezolt, Chair

Paul Lauritzen, Vice Chair

Yemi Akande, Secretary

 

Call to Order: Chair Ernest Dezolt called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m.

 

Invocation: Dr. Dezolt offered the poetry of Lao Tsu.

 

Review of April 2004 Meeting Minutes:     

Dr. Dezolt made two corrections to the minutes.  The amendment was to a quote attributed to Bob Kolesar (History). The original quote was as follows, “Bob responded he did not have time to develop such data given all of the duties he currently was required to address in his role at JCU.” The amended quote now reads, “Bob in his role as director of Core, responded that the data presented are not the type of data to do analysis on.”  The minutes were approved as revised.

 

Announcements:

In breach of new policy to post announcements on Faculty Forum website, the Chair made the following important announcements:

  • The first of a series of special meeting scheduled to take place this semester begins September 23, 2004. This meeting will address issues related to clinical and professional hires at JCU.  In attendance will be Members of the Handbook Committee, as will Cathy Manning (Education and Allied Studies) and Jerry Weinstein (Accounting) who will present justification for the new classification.

 

  • The following individuals will address the Forum (at special faculty meetings) during the in 2004 – 2005 Academic Year:
    • Fr. Glynn, President
    • David LaGuardia, Academic Vice President
    • John Ivec, Vice President, Finance and Administrative Service

 

  • President, Fr. Glynn approved three recommendation from the 2003 – 2004 Academic Year:

·        Masters in Arts

·        Africana Studies concentration

·        Mercer Proposition for changes in health care benefits

 

Members were reminded to check the forum website (http://www.jcu.edu/forum/) for additional announcements.


New Business:

Karen Gygli (Communications), new vice chair closed nominations to serve on the Boler School of Business Deans’ Search Committee and the Boler School seat on the Core Committee.   Nominations were opened for the Search Committee for the Director of Grasselli Library. Nominations should be sent to vice chair via e-mail.  Dr. Gygli thanked outgoing vice chair, Dick Horwath (Mathematics and Computer Science), for his many years of services.

 

Jim Lissemore addressed the Forum regarding reconstitution of the Ad Hoc Committee for J.C.C.I.  He reviewed previous discussion on the issue and quoted from a passage in the book, Universities in the Market Place: The Commercialization of Higher Education (Bok), Princeton University Press.  The passage in his opinion captured the essence of the comodification issue JCU is currently experiencing. “Impatient at the thought of being mired in endless debate, enterprising presidents and deans are tempted to bypass faculty review when launching new entrepreneurial ventures.  Detailed accounts of commercialization repeatedly document this tendency…Unilateral decisions of this kind are an invitation to trouble.” As such, faculty can contribute and should take a more active role in J.C.C.I, especially as it relates to the oversight issue. Dr. Lissemore noted that the current Oversight Committee lacks sufficient accountability.  He explained how J.C.C.I evolved from a proposal presented 5 years ago with three primary objectives, to the current activities of the committee and his disappointment with the current direction of the committee. 

 

When the members of the committee were appointed by the President five years ago, the charge of the committee was to:

  1. Secure rental space in the Dolan Center for Science and Technology for companies;
  2. Encourage the companies to hire JCU students; and
  3. Integrate the students’ learning experience into the academic curriculum at JCU.  

 

Since then, the activities of the committee and the process in which matters were handled were of concern to him.

 

Some of his concerns included the following:

  • Committee membership list not made public;
  • No annual report in five years;
  • One company under consideration in five years - Ridgeway Bio-systems;
  • Ridgeway Bio-systems allowed to review the Center floor plan as the Oversight Committee was reviewing procedures and process related to J.C.C.I;
  • Perception that the Oversight Committee is there to approve companies;
  • Oversight Committee non-responsive to his inquiries;
    • Lissemore had written to several members of the committee, and received no response.  The only member who responded was Paul Lauritzen, who responded the day he resigned from the committee.
  • The role of J.C.C.I has not been brought up with the University Planning Committee (UPC);
  • Questions about intellectual property and policies were drafted without much faculty input; 
  • Financial implications of decisions made have not been reviewed;
  • In Ridgeway’s proposals, students would be required to sign confidentiality agreement which he feels is problematic;
    • What legal responsibility would students be under if they broke the confidentiality agreement? This matter should be addressed. 

 

Dr. Lissemore then proposed the following motions:

  • The Ad Hoc Committee on J.C.C.I shall be reconstituted as soon as possible; and
  • The Ad Hoc Committee on J.C.C.I will be responsible for the following:

1.      Review the Ad Hoc Committee’s Jan. 2000 report on J.C.C.I;

2.      Review J.C.C.I policies and procedures and the process by which they are developed;

3.      Review the current oversight structure for J.C.C.I;

4.      Review financial implications of J.C.C.I for JCU;

5.      Review the Batelle Institute’s March 2002 report and recommendations contained therein;

6.      Assess potential impact of J.C.C.I on JCU students and faculty; and

7.      Report to the faculty with recommendations.

 

The motion was seconded by Val Flechtner (Biology).

 

There was discussion on the motion and Jack Soper (Economics and Finance) asked if there would be a report in five years or if an appropriate time frame would be set for the presentation of the annual report. Dr. Lissemore responded that it would be up to the committee to make that decision.  Dr. Soper also asked what would happen if it took another five years to produce a report.  Dr. Lissemore noted that policies and procedures are still in development and perhaps a report that would be useful to faculty could be presented in January 2005.  Ann Kugler (History) asked for clarification on what reconstituting the committee meant. Dr. Lissemore explained that the committee would retain its original name, with some of the current members retained for institutional memory, however new members would be added. Dr. Kugler asked that if the current committee make-up was the issue, and did Dr. Lissemore have reason to believe that current members could not address his questions and report back to the Faculty Forum. Dr. Lissemore reiterated that he would not like to see all current members remain on the committee, especially since they have had three years to make a difference and nothing has materialized.  Marcia Malotta (Library) agreed with Dr. Soper with regards to the time frame and suggested a March 2005 deadline for the committee to present a report to the Faculty Forum since no Faculty Forum meeting is scheduled for January 2005.

 

Dwight Olson (Math) asked Dr. Lissemore what he hopes to see happen once the report is presented. Jim Lissemore said it depends on the findings of the report, which may address such issues as cost of J.C.C.I and whether there should be further faculty polling. As a follow-up to Dr. Olson’s question, the Chair, Dr. Dezolt stated that the Ad Hoc Committee when reconstituted will present the findings of the report at which time it can be debated.  

 

Jim Krukones added that he received an e-mail from David Ewing (Chemistry and J.C.C.I) who wanted him to pass along the following comments “the two committees (J.C.C.I Development Committee and the Oversight Committee) in existence were doing the job and I feel that and the Ad Hoc Committee would be redundant.”

 

Lauren Bowen (Political Science) acknowledged that she was in support of greater transparency and asked if there were other possibilities in asking the Oversight Committee to come to the Faculty Forum and engage in discussions. Dr. Lissemore responded that it would be fine, but it should be in addition to reconstituting the Ad Hoc Committee. Dr. Bowen further noted that the 2000 report primarily spoke to process concerns and recommendations where made on how to review the current process and that reconstituting the committee may not be ideal.  Dr. Lissemore acknowledged there were serious process and procedural issues.

 

The Chair asked Dr. Bowen if she was making a friendly amendment. In response she stated her interest was to clarify the long-term goals and perhaps redraft the charge. Paul Shick (Mathematics and Computer Science) proposed a friendly amendment that item 7 on Dr. Lissemore’s original amendment be changed to reflect the following: “Report to the faculty with recommendations by March 2005. “No vote occurred.

 

David LaGuardia (Academic Vice President) asked that the charge of the Ad Hoc Committee be considered in terms of a broader vision. He also stated that there needs to be an understanding of the tremendous controversy and energy directed towards the creation of the committee instead of the energy now being spent on changing the direction of the committee. Despite Dr. Lissemore’s objection to the activities of the committee, there has been movement in the right directions and wonderful and important gains have been made to JCU and faculty. Dr. LaGuardia expressed concern that the work that has been done is being undercut by Dr. Lissemore’s proposal. He stressed that the University needs to work collaboratively and asked faculty to look beyond the awkwardness and focus on good things that concern JCU as an institution and not on moral capitulation.

 

Dr. Lissemore responded that there are differences in what a University should do, or who they should collaborate with and feels that issues raised are important especially since the process has not gone well. Faculty should therefore, look at the insufficient accountability that exists. Matt Berg (History) encouraged faculty to look at the transparency issue and look for compromises.  Paul Lauritizen (Religious studies) indicated that he didn’t necessarily agree with Dr. Lissemore, and he found Dr. LaGuardia’s characterization was partially accurate. He further stated that, initially, he was not opposed to J.C.C.I, but stepped down due to issues of control by the Chair of the Oversight Committee and noted that the issue of transparency was also raised when he served on the committee. 

 

Roy Day (Physics) pointed out that the Development Committee addressed many of Lissemore’s concerns, regarding intellectual property. He suggested that information on current procedures be presented to Faculty Forum, then everyone might be in a better position to make a decision on reconstituting the Oversight Committee. The Chair clarified that perhaps an alternate solution was to reconstitute the Ad Hoc Committee as a fact finding committee. Bob Kolesar (History) seconded. The Chair’s comment was not a motion, but comments as part of the discussion. Dr. Shick pointed out there was a conflict with the two motions that had been made. Brent Brossman asked if the original friendly amendment proposed by Dr. Shick would be removed. In later discussion Dr. Shick’s original friendly amendment was removed from the floor.

 

Dr. Day noted that it was important to review process and perhaps a shorter proposal and shorter deadline would be amiable.  Bob Kolesar (History) suggested item 6 of 

Dr. Lissemore’s original motion be removed. Discussion ensued and there was consensus that item 6, which reads as follows: “Assess potential impact of J.C.C.I on JCU students and faculty” be removed.  Dr. Lissemore agreed to removing item 6 from his original set of motion.

 

Discussion returned to the date when the report to faculty will be presented. Val Flechtner made a motion to call to debate. Brenda Wirkus (Philosophy) seconded the motion, which she later retracted because Lauren Bowen’s (Political Science), friendly amendment was now on the floor. The amendment to the motion now read as follows:

  • Report to faculty with recommendations with the goal of improving transparency by January 2005.

Brent Brossmann (Communications) then called for a vote.

  • Yes: 47
  • No: 2

The Amendment passed.

Lissemore expressed thanks to those in attendance for their indulgence over the years.

The Chair noted that the remaining agenda items will be discussed at the next Forum meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 4:39 p.m.

 

Note: The next 30 minutes was spent introducing new faculty from the following departments:

  • Biology
  • Classical and Modern Language
  • Communication
  • Education
  • History
  • Management and Marketing
  • Math and Computer Science
  • Philosophy
  • Physics
  • Religious Studies

 

Notes prepared by Yemi S. Akande, Secretary Faculty Forum