Report of the Faculty Handbook Committee, November 1, 2009 – May 12, 2010.
Chairman of the Handbook Committee:
Joseph R. Landolph, Jr., Ph. D.
Associate Professor of Molecular Microbiology
and Immunology and Pathology
Keck School of Medicine
May 12, 2010.
A short summation of what we accomplished this academic year 2009-2010
follows. Detailed minutes of each of the meetings addressing these topics is appended.
1. We first composed a list of topics that our committee members wanted to work on
in the Faculty Handbook. These items were as follows: a. Policies for Non-Tenure
Track (NTT) Faculty); b. Status of the Faculty Councils in the Faculty Handbook;
c. Phased Retirement Policies; d. Mid-Term Counseling for Non-Tenure Track
Assistant and Associate Professors and Counseling for Long-Term in Grade
Associate Professors to help them achieve promotion; e. Salary Compression/
Salary Inversion/Salary Policies, Salary Equity, Merit Review Process, Raise
Issues; f. Uniformity of Review of Deans and Review of Chairmen Across Schools
at USC and Its Implementation; g. Fixing the numbering and lettering in the
various sections for consistency throughout the Handbook.
2. Dr. Landolph took these items to the Executive Board. The Executive Board
indicated that six of these items would either be considered by various other
Senate Committees (Environment Committee – Phased Retirement Policies, etc.),
or should more properly be negotiated between Deans of various Schools and
their Faculty Councils (e. g., Policies for NTT Faculty, Mid-Term Counseling for
NTT Assistant/Associate Professor and Long Term Associate Professors, Salary
Equity, Merit Review Process, Raise Issues; Review of Chairmen), or would be
dealt with by the Provost (Review of Deans). The Executive Board authorized the
Handbook Committee to study the issue of the status of Faculty Councils in the
Faculty Handbook. The Handbook Committee did this, and concluded that the
practices of the various Faculty Councils and their Deans were so different in the
various Schools, that it would not be prudent to add writing to the Handbook on a
“one size fits all” mode. We therefore voted not to pursue this issue further, until
receiving Dr. Mike Nichols’ report on Faculty Councils at USC, which we are
still awaiting. Professor Nichols said that his report would be forthcoming soon.
3.
The Conflict of Interest Policy was left over from last year. The Executive Board
directed Dr. Landolph and his committee not to pursue this policy this year.
4. Our Committee studied the Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Council’s proposal for
placing a definition of NTT faculty in the Faculty Handbook. After debate in our
1
committee and Dr. Landolph’s discussion with President Alexander Capron,
President Capron and the Executive Board decided that Spitzer Profiles of NTT
Faculty should be placed in each NTT Faculty’s contract, as negotiated between
the NTT faculty member and their Chair/Dean.
5. Our Committee studied and discussed the proposal from the NTT Council
regarding sabbaticals for NTT faculty, at the request of the Academic Senate
Executive Board. We familiarized ourselves with the practices of the various
Schools at USC on this issue, and we were educated by Professor/Associate
Provost Martin Levine on this issue. We were then directed by the Executive
Board to delay making a recommendation on this issue until it was studied by the
Environment Committee, which will study the economic ramifications of
sabbaticals for NTT faculty and make a recommendation to the Academic Senate.
We are still waiting for their recommendation.
6. Our Committee therefore at the end of the year and after a lot of work and study
and debate, made no final recommendations that resulted in actual changes in the
Faculty Handbook. We believed that we acted in accordance with the directives
of the Executive Board of the Academic Senate, which did not want deleterious
changes made to a Handbook which they felt was basically in good shape, but
only prudent, well thought-out changes that would benefit the faculty’s interests.
Minutes of the Meetings of the Handbook Committee of the Academic Senate
Meeting #1, Friday, November 13, 2009, 12:30 – 2:00 P. M., UUC 419, University
Park Campus
1. The eleven members of the Faculty Handbook Committee of the Academic
Senate for the year 2009 – 2010 are the following:
Dr. Jolanta Aritz, Marshall School of Business
Dr. Greg Davis, College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences and President of the LAS Faculty
Assembly
Dr. Patrick James, College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences
Dr. David Endres, Keck School of Medicine
Dr. Robert Israel, Keck School of Medicine
Dr. Joseph R. Landolph, Jr., Keck School of Medicine, Chair of the Handbook
Committee
Dr. Michael Jorgensen, School of Dentistry
Dr. Clare Pastore, The Law School
Dr. Gisele Ragusa, Rossier School of Education
Dr. John Silvester, Viterbi School of Engineering
Dr. Kathleen Wilber, Leonard Davis School of Gerontology
2
2. Members Present at the first meeting: Dr. Joe Landolph (KSOM), Dr. Dave
Endres (KSOM) Dr.Kathleen Wilber (Gerontology), Dr. Giselle Ragusa (Rossier
School of Education), Dr. Mike Jorgensen (Dentistry)
3. Members Not Able to Atttend: Dr. Robert Israel (KSOM), Dr. Clare Pastore, Dr.
Jolanta Aritz (School of Business), Dr. Greg Davis, Dr. Patrick James, Dr. John
Silvester
4. Old Business from last year: The Conflict of Interest Policy was passed by the
Academic Senate last year, and worked on by USC’s attorneys, but it was not
signed by President Sample because some of the wording was unclear. Friendly
amendments in the Academic Senate tried to clarify it, but failed. It is still in
limbo. Dr. Landolph will consult with Dr. Sandeep Gupta of the Academic
Senate about this. Sandeep was last year’s Chair of the Handbook Committee.
He consulted with the Executive Board after this meeting, and they decided to
direct him not to go forward with this issue.
5. Dr. Landolph will work with the Handbook Committee to get a list of the topics
and their order of priority, that the Committee Members want to work on. He will
then speak with the Executive Board of the Academic Senate and see which
topics are acceptable to them and which are priorities. Then, the Committee
members will begin work on these topics.
6. The following members expressed interest in working on the following topics:
a. Kathleen Wilber – Faculty Counsels and their role at USC as described
in the Handbook.
b. Gisele Ragusa – will give some more thought to topics of interest to
her and her constituents.
c. Joe Landolph, others – Associate Professor counseling, faculty salary
adjustments and faculty raises and promotions; salary compression and
inversion; salary equity; merit raise process.
d. Other issues raised: Dean Review.
e. COBRA Conversion: Dave Endres and Gisele Ragusa discussed this issue
with Marty Levine. Marty thinks it is a very important issue, but not a
handbook matter. The State of California provides CRBA for HMOS, not
non-HMOs (USC Network), according to Dr. Levine. We will refer this
matter to the Environment Committee of the Academic Senate, who deals
with this issue.
7. Dr. Martin Levine, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, attended the last half of the
meeting. He expressed interest on the Committee addressing the following topics:
a. Some sections in the Handbook are wrong and should be addressed: Years
of service at another institution section; non-appointment of faculty
members.
b. Chapter on Integrity of the Academic Environment, sub-section b.
3
1) Conflict of Interest Policy: Part of the COI policy is unclear. It
was passed the first time by the Handbook Committee. Friendly
amendments by a Senator on the floor occurred, but this did not
receive universal acclaim. Therefore, USC lawyers said don’t sign
it to President Sample. The Handbook Committee raised the issue
again, and it went to the Executive Board for the third year. The
Executive Board is still working on this, and there are ongoing
wording debates. Everyone should read the COI policy in the
Handbook. Joe Landolph and Dave Endres will speak to the
Academic Senate Executive Board on this issue.
2) Faculty Councils – Law School Model was discussed by Dr.
Levine. It meets only when it has to, when an important issue
comes up. The Law School Dean and the Law School Faculty
respect each other, so the busiest faculty are happy to sit on the
Law School Council, according to Dr. Levine.
3) Elections to the Academic Senate – we should look at this section
in the Handbook.
4) Evaluations of Chairs – This was implemented by former Provost
Lloyd Armstrong. Contact the Senate Executive Board for the
Policy on Evaluations. Chairs are reviewed by the Dean and a
Faculty Committee. Deans’ reviews are ongoing by the Provost’s
Office. The Vice Provost meets with the School’s Council. Dean
Carmen Puliafito of the KSOM will shortly have a fourth year
review.
5) Salary equity issues begin with the Faculty member approaching
the Chair, then the Dean, then the Provost if necessary, to review
the Faculty Member’s salary.
c. Regarding the Keck School of Medicine, Dr. Levine indicated that there is
so little tuition revenue relative to the budgets for so many faculty at the
KSOM, that the budgets are not going up, putting a stress on the faculty to
raise salaries from grants and clinical revenues. Hence, a Merit Review
Process is used to apportion raises among faculty at the KSOM.
8. Attendance at Faculty Handbook Meetings – Due to the difficulty of getting all
eleven members of the Committee to attend a meeting simultaneously, Dr.
Landolph will schedule a number of meetings, begin to compile a list of topics for
the committee to work on, and communicate by e-mail also so all members are
involved.
9. Dr. Dave Endres, last year’s Chairman of the Faculty Handbook Committee,
agreed to check with the Faculty in the Dept. of Pathology at the Keck School of
Medicine, to solicit their input into Faculty Handbook issues.
10. Dr. Joe Landolph agreed to pursue Mid-Career Counseling for Long-Term
Associate Professors and Salary Issues.
4
11. Dr. Dave Endres and Dr. Gisele Ragusa explain the faculty concerns over the
COBRA conversion along with Associate Provost Martin Levine. Dr. Levine
thinks it is a very importation topics, but not a handbook matter. The Benefits
policy dictates benefits. Mr. Todd Dickey handles this. The State of California
provides COBRA for HMOs, not non-HMOS (USC Network).
Meeting #2, Monday, December 7, 2009, 9:00 – 11:00 A. M., UUC 419, University
Park Campus
1. Members Present: Dr. Joe Landolph (School of Medicine; Chair); Dr. Greg Davis
(LAS; President of LAS Faculty Council); Dr. Jolanta Aritz (Marshall School of
Business); Dr. Kathleen Wilber (School of Gerontology).
2. Members Unable To Attend: Dr. Michael Jorgensen (Dentistry), Dr. Clare
Pastore (Law School), Dr. Robert Israel (School of Medicine); Dr. Dave Endres
(School of Medicine); Dr. Patrick James (LAS); Dr. Gisele Ragusa (School of
Education); Dr. John Silvester (Viterbi School of Engineering).
3. Prior to the meeting, Dr. Landolph, Chairman, asked all the faculty to bring topics
of concern from their constituents to the meetings so their input could be
considered. At the meeting, wide-ranging discussion occurred. We agreed,
between the present participants and the participants at the last meeting, to
construct a list of topics to work on as they appear in the Faculty Handbook,
pending Dr. Landolph’s discussion of these topics with the Academic Senate
Executive Board, to see which topics the Executive Board would support. The
suggested topics follow below:
a. Policies for Non-Tenure Track Faculty – Drs. Jolanta Aritz, Greg Davis,
Dave Endres, and other faculty are interested to work on this.
b. Status of Faculty Councils in the Handbook – Drs. Kathleen Wilber is
interested in this; we decided to defer this issue until the report of Dr.
Mike Nichols on this issue to the Academic Senate.
c. Phased Retirement Policies – Drs. Jolanta Aritz and Greg Davis are
enthusiastic to work on this issue.
d. Mid-Term Counselling for Non-Tenure Track Assistant and Associate
Professors and Counseling for Long-Term in Grade Associate
Professors to help them achieve promotion – Dr. Landolph expressed
interest in this topic.
e. Salary Compression/Salary Inversion/Salary Policies, Salary Equity,
Merit Review Process (Some faculty questioned whether this topic was
appropriate for the Handbook Committee to consider, and asked whether
this topic was appropriate to be written into the Faculty Handbook.
5
f. Uniformity of Dean’s Review/ Chairs Review Across Schools at USC
and Its Implementation – Dr. Landolph expressed interest in this topic. .
g. Section 7 C-1: Non-Reappointments for Non-Tenure Track Faculty
on Grievance Issues
4. It was agreed that Dr. Landolph will e-mail this list to the faculty members of the
Faculty Handbook Committee, and solicit feedback from them, by e-mail and at
the next meeting on Friday, Dec. 12, from 12:30 – 2:00 P. M. at UUC 419, on the
University Park Campus. We will then try to finalize this list of topics to be
worked on, and Dr. Landolph will take this to the Executive Board of the
Academic Senate. Please e-mail your suggested additions, deletions, or
modifications to the present list of topics to be worked on. Please call/e-mail Dr.
Landolph for any clarifications. It was agreed not to prioritize this list at this
time, but to work to finalize the list first, and for Dr. Landolph to discuss it with
the Executive Board of the Academic Senate. Dr. Levine will be invited to the
next meeting of this committee.
Submitted By:
Joseph R. Landolph, Jr., Ph. D.
Associate Professor of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology and Pathology
Keck School of Medicine, and
Associate Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of
Pharmacy
Alternate Representative, Dept. of Microbiology and Immunology, to Medical Faculty
Assembly
Member, Executive Board of the Medical Faculty Assembly
Faculty Senator from the Keck School of Medicine
Chair, Handbook Committee of the Academic Senate
Tuesday, December 15, 2009.
jrl/JRL
Meeting #3, Friday, December 18, 2009, UUC #419, 12:30 P. M. – 2:00 P. M.
1. Members Present: Dr. Bob Israel, Tenured Full Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology,
Keck School of Medicine; John Silvester, Ph. D., Professor of Electrical Engineering
Systems, Viterbi School of Engineering; Joe Landolph, Ph. D., Associate Professor of
Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Pathology, and Molecular Pharmacology and
Pharmaceutical Sciences, Keck School of Medicine and School of Pharmacy, and Chair
of Handbook Committee; Dr. Martin Lyon Levine, UPS Foundation Chair and Professor
of Law, Gerontology, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vice Provost of Faculty
Affairs.
6
2. Introduction of Dr. Bob Israel – Trained at Univ. of Penn. Medical School, then John
Hopkins Medical School. At USC since l970. Administers Clinics of Ob./Gyn for L. A.
County. His opinions: His faculty don’t read the Handbook. There was no input from
his faculty constituents for the Handbook Committee to consider at this point in time.
Important areas: Relationship with Industry; Faculty Conflict of Interest Policy. They
have an unrestricted pharmaceutical grant for Education, using Instructors from the Dept.
of Surgery.
3. Dr. John Silvester, Viterbi School of Engineering. B. S. in Mathematics from
Cambridge University; Ph. D. in Computer Science from UCLA. He has been at USC for
30 yrs. He asked for, but received no, requests from his Faculty Council for the
Handbook Committee to consider.
4. Discussion of topics for the Handbook Committee to go forward with:
a. Non-tenure track faculty – For dismissal of NTT faculty, a committee is
constituted with 3 faculty inside the Dept., one member outside the Dept. It is
the Dean’s decision, not the Chair’s decision, to not re-appoint NTT faculty.
The Dean conducts the review, and then Professor and Associate Provost Dr.
Martin Levine reviews the Dean’s decision. How many non-tenure track
faculty are dismissed each year? Very few. About 5 are reviewed out of >
1,000 each year. At the Health Science Campus, we have 550 clinical
faculty. Very few are reviewed for consideration for dismissal each year.
(Data from Professor/Vice Provost Levine).
b. Vice Provost Levine: What do we do at USC about faculty that lose their
mental acuity? He discussed a Professor who contracted Alzheimer’s Disease
late in his career. The Dean of that Professor’s School helped the Professor’s
wife attend to his personal affairs. Only a very small number of faculty fall
into this category.
c. Faculty Mentoring: Dr. Chuck Gomer, Professor, CHLA/USC and former
Chair of the Appointments and Promotions Committe: Mellon Mentoring
is open to all faculty.
d. Discussion of raises for faculty among the members. There was widespread
dissatisfaction among the members present, who were from many different
schools at USC (Medicine, Dentistry, Education, Geronotology, Engineering,
LAS) regarding the raise policies in their various schools. It was stated that
there often is no raise given for teaching and administrative work. The raise
pools are often very small, leading to very small raises, which makes it
difficult for faculty living in Los Angeles, which is very expensive. Some
members said that often, their Chairs do not share their yearly evaluations
with them, so they do not know where they stand.
7
e. Discussion of policy on consulting disclosure: Dr. Levine: Annual disclosure
on this is left up to each Dean. A policy on Pharmaceutical Consulting is
being developed now by Professor Walter Wolf, Professor Peter Conti,
Professor Stan Louie, others. This issue is in flux at the present time, but
faculty will be expected to disclose their consulting activities to avoid
conflicts of interest in the near future.
e. The role of Faculty Councils at USC in the Handbook: Associate Provost and
Professor Marty Levine led the discussion here. The Medical Faculty
Assembly is considered to be only weakly effective. The Law School only
has 70 faculty, meets only when it needs to, is considered very effective. John
Silvester, regarding the Engineering Council, stated that it is considered
middle of the road in effectiveness. Its members are elected, but there are no
non-tenure track faculty on it. The LAS Council is large, meets monthly. It
struggled, since few wanted to be President of the LAD council, but
eventually found a President, Dr. Greg Davis, Professor of Geological
Sciences, a member of this Faculty Handbook Committee.
f. The list of Handbook Committee Priorities decided at two prior meetings of
the was shown to the faculty present at this meeting, and all agreed for Dr.
Landolph to discuss this with the Executive Board of the Academic Senate.
Vice Provost Levine wanted us to add the items he mentioned, such as
straightening up the lettering and numbering of the various sections for
consistency throughout the Handbook.
g. Therefore, here is the unprioritized list of topics to discuss with the Executive
Board of the Faculty Senate, with some of the faculty who are interested in
each topic, listed below. Dr. Landolph will discuss this with the Executive
Board on Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010, at 1:00 P. M.
1) Policies for Non-Tenure Track Faculty – Drs. Jolanta Aritz,
Greg Davis, Dave Endres, and other faculty are interested to work
on this. Section 7 C-1: Non-Reappointments for Non-Tenure
Track Faculty on Grievance Issues.
2) Status of Faculty Councils in the Handbook – Drs. Kathleen
Wilber is interested in this; we decided to defer this issue until the
report of Dr. Mike Nichols on this issue to the Academic Senate.
3) Phased Retirement Policies – Drs. Jolanta Aritz and Greg Davis
are enthusiastic to work on this issue.
4) Mid-Term Counselling for Non-Tenure Track Assistant and
Associate Professors and Counseling for Long-Term in Grade
Associate Professors to help them achieve promotion.
8
5) Salary Compression/Salary Inversion/Salary Policies, Salary
Equity, Merit Review Process, Raise Issues (Some faculty
present questioned whether this was appropriate for the Handbook
Committee to deal with, and whether these issues were appropriate
to be written up in the Faculty Handbook.
6) Uniformity of Review of Deans and Review of Chairmen
Across Schools at USC and Its Implementation.
7) Fixing the numbering and lettering in the various sections for
consistency throughout the Handbook; other issues (Dr.
Levine).
h. On January 27, Dr. Clare Pastore of the Law School of USC, who was unable to
attend any of our meetings this year due to other prestigious service, sent Dr.
Landolph an e-mail indicating that she had spoken to faculty of the Law School, ad
that after polling her colleagues, they had no concerns about the faculty handbook.
Meeting #4 of Dr. Joseph R. Landolph, Chairman of the Faculty Handbook
Committee, With the Executive Board at Their Regular Meeting, on Wednesday,
February 3, 2010.
1. On February 3, 2010, Dr. Landolph met with the member of the Executive Board at
their regular meeting. Present were Dr. Landolph, Dr. Alexander Capron (President of
the Academic Senate), Dr. Sandeep Gupta, Dr. Peter Conti, Dr. David Endres, and
three other members of the Executive Board.
2. Dr. Landolph presented the list of topics that the Handbook Committee Members
wanted to work, in a pro-active fashion. These topics were presented to the Executive
Board as follows:
a) Policies for Non-Tenure Track Faculty – Drs. Jolanta
Aritz, Greg Davis, Dave Endres, and other faculty are
interested to work on this. Section 7 C-1: NonReappointments for Non-Tenure Track Faculty on
Grievance Issues.
b) Status of Faculty Councils in the Handbook – Drs.
Kathleen Wilber is interested in this; we decided to defer
this issue until the report of Dr. Mike Nichols on this issue
to the Academic Senate.
c) Phased Retirement Policies – Drs. Jolanta Aritz and Greg
Davis are enthusiastic to work on this issue.
9
d) Mid-Term Counselling for Non-Tenure Track Assistant
and Associate Professors and Counseling for LongTerm in Grade Associate Professors to help them
achieve promotion.
e) Salary Compression/Salary Inversion/Salary Policies,
Salary Equity, Merit Review Process, Raise Issues
(Some faculty present questioned whether this was
appropriate for the Handbook Committee to deal with, and
whether these issues were appropriate to be written up in
the Faculty Handbook.
f) Uniformity of Review of Deans and Review of
Chairmen Across Schools at USC and Its
Implementation.
g) Fixing the numbering and lettering in the various
sections for consistency throughout the Handbook;
other issues (Dr. Levine).
3. After approximately 30 minutes of vigorous debate and discussion, the Executive
Board indicated to Dr. Landolph that many of these topics were either the purview
of existing Academic Senate Committees (topic #c), or were more properly
handled between the various Faculty Councils and their respective Deans (topics
#a, #d, and #e above). The Executive Board authorized the Handbook Committee
to pursue topic #b, The Status of Faculty Councils in the Handbook, as soon as
Professor Mike Nichols finished with his report on the Faculty Councils and
presented it to the Academic Senate.
Meeting #5: Meeting of the Faculty Handbook Committee, March 24, 2010, 3:45 P.
M. – 5:15 P. M.
1. Members Present: Professor John Silvester, School of Engineering; Professor
Greg Davis, College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences and President of the LAS
Council; Professor of Law and Associate Provost Martin L. Levine; Professor
Giselle Ragusa, School of Education; Associate Professor Joseph R. Landolph,
Dept. of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology and Pathology, Keck School
of Medicine, and Chair of the Committee
2. At this meeting, the committee had a discussion on sabbaticals for faculty at USC,
discussed the proposal from the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Council to allow NTT
faculty to compete for sabbatical funding university-wide. The Executive Board
of the Academic Senate indicated to Dr. Landolph that this proposal had to be
cleared by the Faculty Environment Committee for its financial ramifications
before the Handbook Committee could send a final recommendation to the
10
Executive Board for consideration. Hence, we discussed the proposal, and
deferred a formal vote until we heard back from the Environment Committee.
Within the discussion, we noted that a) sabbaticals for NTT faculty are
uncommon outside of the Keck School of Medicine, b) sabbaticals for NTT
faculty are uncommon in the Law School, and c) NTT faculty are not eligible for
sabbaticals in the Viterbi School of Engineering. It was also noted that at Duke
University and at the University of California, only tenured and tenure-tack
faculty are eligible for sabbaticals.
2. Professor/Associate Provost Levine discussed priorities for faculty at USC, which
he described as: a) long-term health care, b) sabatticals to be funded more richly,
more frequently than every seven years, c) child-care programs to be expanded
and extended, d) others.
Meeting #6: Meeting of the Non-Tenure Track Committee with the Faculty
Handbook Committee, on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, at 1:00 – 2:30 P. M.
1. Members Present from the Faculty Handbook Committee: Jolanta Aritz
(Associate Professor, Marshall School of Business), Martin Levine (Professor of
Law and Associate Provost), Dave Endres (Professor of Pathology, Keck School
of Medicine, and Member of the Academic Senate Executive Board), Bob Israel
(Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine), Kate Wilber
(Professor of the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology), and Joseph R. Landolph
(Associate Professor of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology and Pathology,
Keck School of Medicine; Chairman of the Faculty Handbook Committee).
2. Members Present from the Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Council Professor: Professor
Ginger Clark, Professor Jolanta Aritz (Associate Professor, Marshall School of
Business; also a member of the Faculty Handbook Committee), Gerry Swerling
(Professor and Director of Public Relations Studies and PR Center, Annenberg
School of Communications), and Professor Gary Wood.
3. Professor Jerry Swerling introduced himself and described the Non-Tenure Track
Council (NTT Council). He indicated that the NTT Council consisted of one
NTT faculty member volunteer from each unit within USC. Each member was a
volunteer, and was not elected. He also described how NTT faculty are different
tenure-track faculty at USC, how their efforts and contacts differ, and how the
NTT faculty are perceived. Next, Professors Ginger Clark, Jolanta Aritz, and
Gary Wood gave short presentations on the NTT faculty and their desire for the
definition of NTT faculty to be placed into the Faculty Handbook. The members
of the Handbook Committee then asked many questions, and extended discussion,
questions, and clarifications followed. Professor and Associate Provost Martin
Levine described the differences between NTT faculty in the Keck School of
Medicine vs. in the School of Education vs. in the College of Letters, Arts, and
Sciences, vs. in the School of Engineering in terms of their privileges and status.
11
4. Dr. Landolph and the Handbook Committee then thanked the NTT Council, and
Dr. Landolph dismissed them so the Handbook could deliberate in private. The
Handbook Committee then resumed in private session and discussed this
situation. Dr. Dave Endres, also a member of the Executive Board of the
Academic Senate, indicated that the Executive Board was not pleased with the
NTT definition offered up by the NTT Council. After discussion, it was clear that
the NTT Council offered one version of the NTT resolution to the Executive
Board, which they modified and sent back to the NTT Council. The NTT Council
then modified this version, and sent it to the Handbook Committee. Because we
were not sure what the desire of the Executive Committee was, the Handbook
Committee voted 5-0 in favor of having Dr. Landolph, its Chair, speak with
Academic Senate Alexander Capron, before we proceeded forward. Dr. Landolph
did so the next day. After discussion, Dr. Capron indicated he would discuss this
again with the Executive Board, which he did. In private conversation on May 5,
2010, on the Health Sciences Campus, President Capron indicated to Dr.
Landolph that he and the Executive Board felt that it was not necessary to place
the NTT definition in the Faculty Handbook, but that each unit of USC should
have the percentage efforts of each NTT faculty member (a “Spitzer Profile”)
added to their contracts, as a negotiation between the NTT faculty member and
the Dean of that School.
12