Faculty Senate Minutes
February 21, 2000
Present: Kris Bartanen, Heather Bruce, Terry Cooney, Doug Edwards, Connie Hale, Bill Haltom,
Suzanne Holland, Chris Kline, David Sousa, Keith Ward.
Visitors: Nancy Bristow, Steven Neshyba, Sue Tjardes
Meeting Called to Order: 4:00 p.m.
The minutes of the Senate meeting of February 7, 2000 were approved.
New Item of Business (1): Discussion of junior faculty retention: David Sousa Memo of 2/15/00
(attached). Bristow noted that Women Studies addressed Bartanen report last year and would be
open to sharing the energy and thinking they have put into it.
Edwards said it would be helpful to have data on retention, but who keeps these records?
Cooney responded by saying that data can be generated but not quickly as access is closely
restricted under the Code and he does not have staff to do it now. Bartanen added that they
need to look at 1997-99 to bring her report up-to-date.
Kline said we need to realize the difference between orientation of junior faculty and the
support that they need and the long-term process of induction of faculty.
Bruce: What kind of data would justify the "feeling" that this is a problem? Maybe this
morale problem is not one others are concerned about but many of us think it's a big problem.
Cooney: Losing and hiring is a reciprocal process among institutions. More people now
move one or two times before landing in the place they will stay.
The question is: Have we seen any pattern that represents an aberrant form? I think it is
consistent over time and across disciplines. Is this a bad thing or not?
If you are trying to hire the best, these people will have options to make other decisions.
Is movement not a healthy expectation in any system? It seems that the choice to leave
academia is what's unusual this year.
Sousa: I would like to have an institution that will "satisfy" faculty and "promote" their
growth in ways we can control around campus. Maybe we could have conversations and get
some sense of what the story is so we can do better by people we would like to keep.
Bristow: People who stay may also sometimes be unhappy and this is worth focusing on,
too. We need to collect quantitative and qualitative data. Buy why are people leaving? If there is
an impression of a morale problem then that itself is worthy of our attention--perhaps even more
so for senior faculty.
Sousa: We would do as much for our students who are National Merit Scholars. If they
were leaving we would examine our culture. We are in effect recruiting National Merit Scholars at
the end of their careers (analogy to faculty).
Holland: I have felt included and "brought in" to the culture at this university, but there is
a morale problem and I am experiencing it. This new exodus, talk of exodus, is demoralizing.
Many people are talking of leaving--some are senior faculty, some are junior faculty. This needs
to be more than a chat in the Senate.
Hale: Can we gather data and not drop this?
Haltom: Senate can ask Terry for data but it must know it is not high on his priority list in
the absence of an administrative assistant. Realistically, we may not be able to get these data
even this semester.
Cooney: It may not be that complicated. If it is just updating the Bartanen chart, I'll do my
best and we can revisit this later this semester.
Bruce: Only one person from my cohort remains to go up for tenure next year and this is
significant. Some concerns have to do with spousal concerns and benefits. Point made in Sousa
memo that we can't do anything about departmental cultures is a misperception.
Sousa: How can you shift in short run how these organizations do business? Too hard
to change.
Bruce: When this becomes problem in other places, departments can go into
receivership, but it requires admitting there is a problem.
Haltom: Department autonomy is a problem that arises. Discussions of mentoring junior
faculty have come up in the past and in the 1970s, chairs were all over the place, i.e., "nobody
ever did that for me!" But also reasonable comments: "how will internal people take it if advice is
being given externally that's contrary to internal culture?" Haltom says he would be apprehensive
about pushing junior faculty along certain lines that might be the wrong lines. How many of us
would do more harm than good?
Bartanen: We often begin talking about environmental life of junior faculty and then end
up talking about tenure and review. It's helpful to put questions on the table from time to time
such as advising and committee requirements, etc. Having this conversation among department
chairs would be healthy. It's unfortunate to open a conversation and then to have it end by what
can we do about getting people to tenure.
Haltom: We can deliberate about what Senate wishes to ask Terry to do: chair a
discussion; ongoing interviews with faculty presided over by Senate to find out the measure of
discontent, etc. This might be an ongoing role for Senate.
Holland: Maybe we could think about how to do what Haltom suggests.
Haltom: OK. Senate is asked to think about how to do just that.
Neshyba: Informal kinds of recognition help you feel valuable--teaching awards, etc. We
should consider morale boosters--things that community can do to recognize initiative that don't
cost much.
Bruce: Public thanks to Sousa for putting his memo together.
New Item of Business (2): Connie Hale summarized Report on Instructors at UPS (report to be
sent as attachment to the Senate by Haltom.
M/S/P to adjourn at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne Holland
2