Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2000
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. in the Rasmussen Rotunda of the
Wheelock Student Center. Approximately one hundred voting members of the faculty were
present.
Deleted: University of Puget Sound¶
Formatted
Deleted: meeting
Formatted
John Finney was elected faculty secretary for 2000-2001.
Minutes of the May 8, 2000 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
In response to President Pierce’s call for announcements, John Hanson reported that Eric
Scharrer, Johanna Crane, Curt Mehlhaff, Ken Rousslang, and Anne Wood were just notified of
the award of a $38,000 National Science Foundation grant titled Thermal Analysis Across the
Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum. The grant will purchase two instruments, a differential
scanning calorimeter and a thermogravimetric analyzer
Deleted: had
Deleted: been
President Pierce had no report.
Dean Cooney had no report other than to remind faculty of his standing offer of a bottle of wine (or
some suitable alternative) to any faculty member who applies for an external grant of $1,000 or
more.
Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom announced that the first meeting of the Faculty Senate would be
held Monday, September 11, 2000, in the McCormick Room in the Library. He also said he had a
few copies for faculty interested in an article reviewing the methodology used by U.S. News &
World Report for ranking undergraduate colleges and universities.
We turned to the main agenda item, a discussion of the Faculty Code. President Pierce reminded
us that the trustees charged us four years ago to streamline the code “to eliminate
inconsistencies, to clarify ambiguities, and to reduce the University’s legal vulnerability.” A
committee consisting of John Riegsecker, David Droge, Kris Bartanen, and Terry Cooney
developed a draft document during 1996-1997. The faculty worked through the draft during 19971998 and approved a version on May 11, 1998. The trustees responded in a fall 1999 document,
conditionally accepting many of the changes proposed by the faculty, raising questions about
some of the changes, and making suggestions in other cases. Bill Weyerhaeuser further
described the trustees thinking in a May 2000 letter to the faculty.
President Pierce noted that the Board’s goal is that the faculty produce a document that the Board
could readily approve that protects the rights of the faculty, that outlines faculty responsibilities,
and that addresses the issues the trustees laid out in the May 2000 document.
She then suggested a way of proceeding. Noting that almost all of the faculty
discussion to date has focused on the question of procedural violations in the
evaluation process outlined in chapter 3, she suggested that we defer further
discussion of that issue and systematically work our way through the rest of the
trustee document, at least some of which she expected would not be
controversial. Finally, she suggested that today we focus on: (1) what points can
we and the trustees agree on? and (2) when there are differences, can we define the
differences?
Deleted: several
Deleted: issues
Deleted: Mr. Weyerheauser’s
Deleted: :¶
¶
Deleted: ¶
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2000, Page 2
Deleted: 22
Deleted: 1999
She then suggested that between this meeting and our next meeting individuals or small groups
might try to come up with suggestions for language that would both meet the board’s goal of
meeting its fiduciary responsibilities and satisfying the faculty.
Deleted: (3)
Deleted: ing
There was no objection to this plan.
George Tomlin said that the Weyerhaeuser memo hints at future substantive changes and asked
President Pierce what these might be. She responded that to her knowledge the trustees have no
substantive changes in mind that they plan to pursue nor have they discussed this matter.
We turned to discussion of the issues raised in the fall 1999 document from the trustees.
We first discussed the trustees’ suggestion that we eliminate the word “general” in II,1,c of the
code.
Bill Beardsley asked how such a large group as the faculty could write specific policy. He
suggested we should have a smaller group do this. President Pierce responded that we did it
once this way already when in 1997-1998 we as a faculty re-wrote some of the language
proposed by the ad hoc committee. She said that given that the Board has asked for a response
at the October Board meeting, continuing with this meeting’s informal discussion gets us toward
that goal expeditiously. She also noted that until the faculty discussed the various issues, a
smaller committee would not have a sense of the faculty to inform its work.
Ted Taranovski suggested replacing “general” with “appropriate.” Florence Sandler asked why
the word “general” was added in the first place. Haltom responded it was added to move away
from the idea that policies would be developed ad hoc. Sandler responded that the word “policies”
by itself implies that. She said we should get rid of the word “general,” and Ili Nagy agreed.
President asked if the consensus was to eliminate the word “general” and there was no objection.
We then moved to a discussion of initial appointment procedures in II,4 in the code. Dean
Bartanen explained that the faculty had made no changes to this section, but the trustees believe
the section is so specific in its procedures that it might be best to move these procedures into a
hiring guidelines document that could be changed more readily than the code can be changed.
Juli McGruder asked how the faculty retains authority over initial appointment procedures if the
language is moved outside the code. Dean Cooney responded that moving the language outside
the code removes trustee involvement without diminishing faculty authority, which could be
exercised through the Professional Standards Committee or through the full faculty. Tomlin
added that if we move the language outside the code, we need to be clear about the status of the
language so faculty authority doesn’t get lost. President Pierce agreed, and asked Dean Bartanen
to provide language previously proposed as an amendment in this section. Dean Cooney
suggested that a good starting document for the hiring process might be the green-covered
faculty recruitment book used by department chairs. Suzanne Barnett said that, consistent with
the trustee’s suggestion, it was important to retain a few fundamental hiring guidelines in the code.
The faculty agreed by consensus with this line of reasoning, so we moved on to a discussion of
the inclusion of the word “instructor” in III,2 in the code. The trustees in the fall 1999 document
asked for wording clarifications to eliminate confusion about which sections refer to instructors.
After brief discussion of the trustees’ recommendations on language, there emerged consensus
that the confusions in III,2 concerning instructors should be eliminated through wording changes.
At this point McGruder raised a point of procedure, arguing that she was having a hard time
hearing and that the acoustics were better in McIntyre 103. President Pierce asked what the
sense of the body was on this and the consensus was that McIntyre 103 was a better venue for
faculty meetings. President Pierce agreed we would move back to McIntyre 103 for future
Deleted: already
Deleted: e
Deleted: also
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2000, Page 3
Deleted: 22
Deleted: 1999
meetings. David Lupher asked if there would still be cookies as had been provided prior to
today’s meeting, and President Pierce responded “I’ll see what I can do.”
We next considered the trustees’ proposal to add the word “normally” twice to the second
paragraph of III,2 in the code. There was no objection to this.
President Pierce suggested we defer discussion of III,4, and she asked the faculty to look at this
section “with great care.” She said the trustees are asking us to maintain fundamental fairness as
the appropriate standard for reviews, not adherence to detailed procedures.
We moved to a discussion of III,4,c,(2) and (3) about the evaluee’s written response to “a revised
summary of department letters or a summary of letters sent directly to the Advancement
Committee.” Dean Cooney explained that the trustees are concerned that the language is
inconsistent with language in 2,b,(4) that allows the evaluee to notify the committee if “the faculty
member feels that he or she has been unfairly or inadequately evaluated.” Hans Ostrom asked if
we couldn’t broaden the discussion by proposing that all files should be open. Haltom added that
“we can’t know what we’re doing today.” He said “it seems as if the trustees are making
substantive changes in some of their responses.”
President Pierce responded that if we move wording outside the code and the faculty retains the
right of approval, she would not judge that to be a substantive change. She added that the
Faculty Senate did not respond to the trustees’ fall 1999 document last year, and that the trustees
are asking for a response. She said therefore that today we were trying to make informal
resolutions to non-controversial items. She reiterated her argument that it made sense for the
faculty to try to address those issues raised by the trustees that were agreeable to the faculty so
that the faculty could then focus on areas where there were questions. She noted that if there
could not be a resolution of these issues informally, we would move into conference committee
mode but that the Board would prefer that we work informally first.
Bob Matthews said he agreed with Beardsley, that we could not write specific language in such a
large group. President Pierce urged that we “clear the slate of all the items we agree with the
trustees on. Then we can get to the point where the faculty knows what its concerns are.” She
again noted that without such a conversation, a small committee would not have a sense of the
will of the faculty.
Returning to the III,4,c issue, Sandler said she thought it was just a housekeeping issue. Others
agreed.
Matthews insisted that we need to discuss “how the process moves from here.” He said he
prefers that we have this discussion to find out what the serious issues are, and that we then send
them to the Senate for quick action and a return to the full faculty. Anne Wood said this
discussion was good in that it was leading to a few things we can vote on at the next faculty
meeting so we can show the trustees that we are making progress.
Paul Loeb suggested adding wording to the code to the effect that “procedural violations not
affecting fairness are not violations of the code.” President Pierce said she thought this “might
work” and would pursue it. She added that she likes this idea because it would clarify that the
procedures outlined are guidelines and not legal prescriptions. She said she hoped we might find
language that would enable us to eliminate the “legalese” of the currently proposed language.
George Tomlin asked if there is common agreement on what “fairness” is in this code language.
President Pierce responded that appeals are often based on claims that an evaluation was unfair
in some way and any decision must be a judgment call. She noted that she could not think of a
procedural violation that by definition could lead to a claim of unfairness and that if there were a
Deleted: ;
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2000, Page 4
Deleted: 22
Deleted: 1999
procedural violation that a faculty member deemed unfair, he or she could base the appeal on the
notion of fairness.
Doug Cannon said that hiring procedures are quite different from evaluation procedures in this
regard. Bill Breitenbach argued that the real problem is “who gets to decide what’s a technical
violation.” He said it seems to be a surrender of faculty authority to allow the President to do this.
Noting that she is not an attorney, President Pierce responded that if a Hearing Board rules that
something is a substantial violation and the President and the Board ignore it, the evaluee would
be in a stronger position to pursue a complaint outside the university. Alternatively, if the Hearing
Board rules something is not a violation of fundamental fairness, the claim would have less
standing.
Deleted: ; and that in any event people will
have the ability to file suit if they disagree with
the judgment reached through the campus
process.
Deleted: U
Haltom argued that there needs to be focused faculty scrutiny on unintended consequences on
these matters. For example, how would the Hearing Board adjudicate this without making its own
independent determination on how a tenure case should have come out. He said a Hearing
Board would have to concentrate on substantive issues as well as procedural issues, whereas
now it has only procedural issues to deal with. President Pierce responded that Hearing Boards
do deal with the question of whether the process was fair without re-doing a tenure decision.
Dean Cooney suggested that we return to the other issues before us before we end today’s
meeting. We therefore moved to a discussion of III,4,d,(1) concerning the requirement that chairs
meet with evaluees within one month of receiving the report. The trustee suggestion is that “shall”
be exchanged for “should.” Haltom suggested it would be wiser to change the time allowed for
the meeting than to change “shall” to “should.” He argued that junior faculty in particular need to
have their chairs go over their evaluations with them. He said these meetings must happen but
that the thirty day time limit could be extended to some more reasonable period. Eric Orlin
suggested that in order to avoid future ambiguities, we might add a provision for an outer limit
within which discussions should take place.
We moved to a discussion of the Appendix. Dean Cooney explained the trustees’ concern and
their proposal that the Appendix be deleted. Taranovski suggested letting the Senate sort out
these issues. He moved “that we send these items we’ve gone over today to the Senate to
draft language we can vote on.” There was no second. President Pierce reiterated the point
that the trustees want us to come back to them with issues we can agree on.
Loeb argued that in their fall 1999 document the trustees are proposing three substantive
changes. He suggested we concentrate on them and dispense with the others. President Pierce
agreed we should resolve what we can and then move on to issues that are less easy to resolve.
Grace Kirchner M/S/vote reported below "that we charge the Faculty Senate with
composing a response to Chairman Weyerhaeuser's letter and that they bring it back to
the full faculty for approval as soon as possible."
President Pierce immediately asked Kirchner if the Senate's charge would include work on
language concerning the "exclusive remedy" issue and Kirchner said yes.
Haltom asked Kirchner two questions of clarification: (1) so the Senate will work on this charge at
its meeting next Monday instead of committee charges? and (2) so the Senate should draft what
the faculty think the trustees' response to the faculty should be?
Kirchner responded yes to both.
Deleted: ,
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2000, Page 5
Deleted: 22
Deleted: 1999
President Pierce indicated that we would return to this topic at our next meeting and that she
hoped we could talk about the three remaining issues. She said she doesn’t want us to have to
report to the trustees that we won’t even talk about them because we say they are substantive
and the trustees say they are procedural.
David Droge M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice vote.
The main Kirchner motion then passed on a voice vote.
We adjourned at 5:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty