Faculty Meeting Minutes
April 4, 2000
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. Fifty voting members of the faculty were
present.
Minutes of the March 8, 2000 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
In response to President Pierce's call for announcements, Dean of Students Kris Bartanen invited
faculty who are interested in the topic of faculty advising in theme houses, theme floors, or other
student organizations to attend a workshop meeting April 12, 2000 at noon. She announced a
workshop to be held on April 26, 2000 at 4:00 to discuss the diversity theme year for next year.
Both events will be at the Faculty Club. Finally, she invited faculty to participate in a studentorganized blood drive on April 27 or April 28.
Neither President Pierce nor Dean Cooney had a report. Neither did Faculty Senate Chair
Haltom, who was preparing to commune with Bruce Springsteen in the Tacoma Dome.
We began a discussion of the early retirement policy. President Pierce noted that the University
had not been interested in changing the early retirement policy that had been a successful one for
the University but that concerns had arisen that the early retirement policy might discriminate by
age and might involve a tax liability for faculty and for the University. To address this question, a
faculty-administrative group was formed. The membership over the past several years has
involved then Faculty Senate Chair Grace Kirchner, current Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom, then
members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee Cathy Hale, Bill Beardsley and Bryan Smith,
President Pierce, Vice President Cooney and Vice President Rothman. This group worked both
with the attorney originally hired by the University and more recently with Rich Birmingham, an
attorney that the University hired at the request of the faculty. President Pierce said that an act of
Congress removed the age discrimination worry, but that tax liability exposure remained. Legal
counsel Birmingham has recommended changes to the early retirement policy that he believes
would minimize risks to individual faculty members and the University. President Pierce said that
she is obliged to take this legal opinion to the trustees in May. Because the early retirement policy
is a benefits policy that falls outside the Faculty Code, the change does not formally require faculty
action but, she also explained, she did not want to take the policy to the Board without giving the
faculty an opportunity to discuss the proposed changes. She also noted that the facultyadministrative early retirement committee had some weeks ago held a meeting for those
interested in talking about the proposed changes and that those few attendees suggested that the
matter be discussed in the context of a regular faculty meeting. She then asked Professor
Kirchner to describe the proposed changes.
Grace Kirchner reported that the potential tax liability is different for faculty hired before and after
July 14, 1988. So long as faculty hired before that date provide a year’s notice of intent to retire
early (a time period that could be reduced on appeal to 180 days), there is “risk of forfeiture” and
therefore no tax liability. The recommended policy change for faculty hired after July 14, 1988 is
that there be the year’s notification along with approval of early retirement by a plan administrator.
If the policy does not carry with it “risk of forfeiture,” the IRS may choose to tax individual faculty
members on the early retirement benefit at the moment at which they became eligible for the
benefit even though those same faculty members might never elect to retire early. In such
instances, there would also be financial penalties to the University.
Keith Maxwell asked when the year begins for this purpose, and Dean Cooney responded
September 1, indicating that someone asking to retire a year hence would need to do so prior to
September 1. Tom Rowland asked whether the method of payout would also need to be specified
a year out. Dean Cooney later consulted the legal opinion document which said that yes, “At the
time such retirement election is made, the faculty member must also irrevocably elect to receive
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
April 4, 2000, Page 2
payments in installments or as a lump sum.” Terry Mace asked if sabbatical years count toward
the twenty-year employment period required, and Dean Cooney said this period is tracked from
the date of hire.
Curt Mehlhaff asked whether there would need to be any changes to the Faculty Code. President
Pierce responded that there may be some minor details to clean up. Grace Kirchner noted that
she wasn’t sure that it would be necessary to change the Code. President Pierce said that if the
committee deemed changes to the Code necessary, it would come back to the faculty with those
proposed changes.
Alan Thorndike asked whether the faculty were notified ahead of time prior to trustee approval of
the faculty benefits package. Neither President Pierce nor Dean Cooney could think of any
instance when faculty had not been notified ahead of time.
There being no further commentary on the proposed changes to the early retirement policy, we
moved to a discussion of the Curriculum Committee’s proposal to change the calendar. Bill Barry
explained that the Curriculum Committee had received expressions of concern about low student
attendance in classes the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Barry reported the results of a
survey the Curriculum Committee sent to faculty about ways to make it possible to have that day
off and also perhaps to add another fall break day. Faculty were asked if they were willing to hold
classes on Labor Day. Forty-eight said “yes,” and 48 said “no.” Faculty were asked if they were
willing to start classes a few days earlier in the fall. Forty-seven said “yes,” and 46 said “no.”
Faculty were asked if they were willing to hold finals on weekend days. Fifty-one said “yes” and
45 said “no.”
Despite these equal votes, when asked whether they would like the committee to pursue some
changes to the calendar, 68 faculty said “yes” and 39 said “no.” As a result, the Curriculum
Committee developed a proposal, labeled “Option A” in the document Barry distributed at the
faculty meeting entitled “Fall Term Calendar Options” (a copy is attached to these minutes).
Barry noted that the committee had been divided on this proposal but that it did have a majority of
the committee’s votes. This proposal has fall semester starting two days earlier, creating another
fall break day in October and adding Wednesday to Thanksgiving vacation. Barry also described
“Option B,” in which final exams end on a Saturday, and “Option C,” in which Labor Day becomes
a class day.
Steve Neshyba, chair of the Curriculum Committee, said we had three courses of action: (1) vote
to implement one of the three options, (2) poll the faculty for more information, or (3) do nothing.
Kris Bartanen distributed a handout that described several scenarios for freshman orientation
under the Curriculum Committee’s “Option A.” She reviewed the scenarios briefly and said that,
while decisions about orientation should not drive decisions about the academic calendar, it was
important to consider the impact on orientation that decisions about the calendar may have. She
observed that changing the calendar and gauging its effects was a very complex business, and
she suggested that perhaps there should be no change to the calendar affecting orientation until
the new Core was in place since the new freshmen seminars might well have an impact on
Prelude.
Bill Beardsley asked why changing the calendar is necessary if there is no compelling reason
behind it and if it may damage existing programs. David Balaam said he has experienced empty
classes the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and he observed that some faculty let students out
that day. Alva Butcher said she favors “Option B” because it would add an additional class day
after Thanksgiving vacation and would have no impact on freshman orientation. Lynda Livingston
said the Curriculum Committee’s survey showed there was more support for an additional fall
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
April 4, 2000, Page 3
break day than for another Thanksgiving vacation day, and that most faculty oppose lengthening
the term after Thanksgiving.
Dean Cooney, observing that the Curriculum Committee found even splits in its survey and
divided votes for its proposals, suggested it would be better not to proceed unless there is a
substantial majority favoring change for identified reasons. He observed that the Curriculum
Committee did a good job on this, but there is apparently no agreement among faculty.
Fred Slee suggested that if the Wednesday before Thanksgiving were added to Thanksgiving
vacation, students would start their vacations the prior weekend. He suggested that we thank the
Curriculum Committee for their work and desist from further consideration of a calendar change.
Ted Taranovski said that the real problem is the short period following Thanksgiving, making that
part of the semester “anti-climactic.” He said he favors extending the semester into December.
He said he supports the idea of thanking the Curriculum Committee for their efforts and dropping
efforts to change the calendar.
ASUPS President Ryan Mello distributed a memorandum to faculty opposing the proposed
change to the calendar. He observed that the Curriculum Committee’s work in developing the
proposal was “very good,” but that it was of serious concern to students because of its negative
impact on orientation. Her urged us not to make changes that would impact orientation
President Pierce suggested that we end our consideration of this, giving us the opportunity to
develop guidelines for the new core, to think about how the new freshman seminars might
influence the Prelude component of orientation, to allow the student services staff to think about
possible changes to Passages, and at some later point to consider how these developments
affect orientation and whether they might make consideration of a calendar change more feasible.
We agreed by consensus.
We adjourned at 4:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
April 4, 2000, Page 4
Fall Term Calendar Options
Option A: Early start
Start on Thursday, 2 days earlier than current calendar.
End of term same as current calendar: Last day of class on Wednesday.
Reading period: Thursday through Sunday.
Finals: Monday through Friday.
Yield: 2 additional days. Add 1 (Tues) to Fall Break; 1 (Wed) to Thanksgiving Break.
Problem: Start as early as August 23.
Possible remedy: Start one week later in certain years (***).
Yr
1
2
3
4
5
Start
29-Aug
28-Aug
27-Aug
26-Aug
25-Aug
End
20-Dec
19-Dec
18-Dec
17-Dec
16-Dec
6
24-Aug
or ***6 31-Aug
15-Dec
22-Dec
7
or***7
14-Dec
21-Dec
23-Aug
30-Aug
Option B: Late finish
Start same as current calendar: Monday or Tuesday if Labor Day is the first Monday of classes.
Last day of class on Thursday, not Wednesday.
Reading period: Friday through Monday
Finals: Tuesday through Saturday
Yield: 1 additional day.
Problem: Last day of finals on Saturday and in some years ending as late as December 21.
Yr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Start
3-Sep
2-Sep
31-Aug
30-Aug
29-Aug
28-Aug
27-Aug
End
21-Dec
20-Dec
19-Dec
18-Dec
17-Dec
16-Dec
15-Dec
Option C: Teach Labor Day
Start on Monday.
Teach Labor Day (Monday).
End of term same as current calendar: Last day of class on Wednesday
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
April 4, 2000, Page 5
Reading period: Thursday through Sunday
Finals: Monday through Friday.
Yield: 1 additional day.
Problem: Labor Day is currently a staff holiday.
Yr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Start
2-Sep
1-Sep
31-Aug
30-Aug
29-Aug
28-Aug
27-Aug
End
20-Dec
19-Dec
18-Dec
17-Dec
16-Dec
15-Dec
14-Dec