UNIVERSITY COUNCIL
2006 – 2007
AGENDA
February 15, 2007
1. Approval of Minutes
2. Report of Chair
3. Revision of the University Calendar Schedule of Standing Meetings
4. Mandate on Lifetime Service Award returned from Faculty Senate
University Council Minutes of Meeting
January 18, 2007
In attendance: Professors Phyllis Anastasio, Paul Angiolillo, Jeanne Brady, Audre Brokes, Sandy
Fillebrown, Eileen Grogan, Rick Herschel, Christina King-Smith, Michelle Rowe, W. Richard Sherman,
George Sillup, Claire Simmers, Cathy Spinelli, Dr. Linda Lelii, Ms. Irene McFadden, Ms. Patricia Smith,
Mr. Daniel Harris, Mr. Michael Mc Donald, Mr. Keith O’Brien, Mr. Kevin Zajac, Dean Joseph DiAngelo,
Parliamentarian Francis Graham Lee, and Provost Brice Wachterhauser. Guests included Debbie Fickler,
General Counsel, and Paul DeVito, Associate Provost, Nancy Komada, Michael Matulewicz, and Richard
Chambers, student members of the Student Affairs Committee, Full-time Undergraduate Day.
1. The meeting convened at 11:36 a.m. The minutes were approved by a vote of 19-0-1 on a motion by
Professor Simmers, seconded by Professor Sherman.
2. The Chair reported that Mr. Keith O’Brien, newly elected Vice President for Academic Affairs in the
University Student Senate, now also sits on University Council. Mr. Michael McDonald continues to
serve but is now the newly elected President of the University Student Senate.
3. The next agenda item was the prioritization of the outstanding mandates that had been sent to APP
and FPP. The Executive Committee suggested that APP consider its mandates in this order:
Assessment of Academic Advising
Academic Requirements for Credit-bearing Internships
Distance Education Committee
Course Evaluation of Online Courses
Standardizing Degree Programs Tabled
A motion to accept the Executive Committee’s recommendations on the prioritization of
outstanding mandates was made by Professor Fillebrown and seconded by Professor Angiolillo.
Professor King Smith made an amendment to establish October 2007 as the return date for the
Distance Education mandate. This amendment passed 19 – 0 – 0, 2 ineligible to vote. The main
motion, as amended, passed 19 – 0 – 0, 2 ineligible to vote.
The Executive Committee suggested that FPP consider its mandates in the following order:
Review of Criteria to Serve on the Board on Rank and Tenure
Mechanism to Develop Tenure & Promotion Procedures in Departments with No Senior
Faculty
Assessment of Service Indicators in the Faculty Handbook
Student Evaluations of Faculty Teaching
A motion to accept the Executive Committee’s recommendations on the prioritization of
outstanding mandates was made by Professor Simmers and seconded by Professor Fillebrown.
FPP should be asked to revise the due dates on all the mandates by the February meeting. The
motion passed 19 – 0 – 1, 2 ineligible to vote.
4. The Course Numbering mandate returned from APP. Professor Grogan moved and Professor Rowe
seconded a motion to accept the recommendations approved by Faculty Senate. Professor Grogan
noted that she had worked with the Registrar to provide numbers for the Independent Study, Directed
Readings, and Research categories that the Faculty Senate had not been able to approve. Professor
Grogan moved and Professor Brokes seconded a motion to amend the proposal regarding numbering
of independent Study, Directed Readings and Research. This amendment passed 20 – 0 – 0, 2
ineligible to vote. It was agreed that this renumbering would occur when the new curriculum is
instituted. The motion to accept the APP recommendation as amended passed 20 – 0 – 0, 2 ineligible
to vote.
5. The next agenda item was a proposed mandate on Qualitative Description and Definition of Letter
Grades for Undergraduate Courses. Professor Grogan moved and Professor Sherman seconded
sending the mandate on to APP. Associate Provost DeVito stated that inconsistencies exist, and the
mandate seeks to set standards and provide equity within and across departments. The Princeton
grades provided are just an example to look at. Professor Grogan sought to clarify whether APP
should look at the grading scale. APP is just being asked to provide qualitative language to describe
better the grades we have and will maintain. A suggestion to add the word “existing” before “letter
grades” in the objective of the mandate was accepted by unanimous consent of the body The vote on
the main motion was 20 – 0 – 0, 2 ineligible.. The return date is May 2007.
6. The next agenda item was a proposed mandate on Tenure/Promotion Evaluation Information
Access to All in the Process. Professor Sherman moved and Professor Grogan seconded sending this
mandate to FPP. Professor Grogan noted problems with how the mandate is drafted. Pages 44 and
46 in the Faculty Handbook indicate that the Board on Rank and Tenure can solicit additional
information. Professor Simmers suggested that the author speak with Professor Warren who
introduced a mandate at the last meeting on a similar topic: candidate access to departmental letters.
The Provost noted that it might be difficult to observe the timeline regarding tenure and promotion in
the Faculty Handbook if this mandate were implemented. The proposal to send the mandate to FPP
was lost; the vote was 0-18-2, 2 ineligible.
7. Professor Grogan proposed changes to the University Calendar which establishes meeting dates for
major university committees. Professor Simmers moved adoption of this proposal, seconded by
Professor Sillup. A lack of clarity about exactly what would be changed and what the implications
would be sent the proposal back to the Executive Committee who will provide suggestions at the next
meeting. The vote approving this was 20 – 0 – 0, 2 ineligible.
8. The next agenda item was the Revision to the Student Code: Guest Policy. Professor Grogan
moved and Professor Anastasio seconded approving the changes made by the Student Affairs
Committee: Full-time Undergraduate Day. Dr. Lelii noted that this revision restricts visiting hours
for freshmen of the opposite sex in the residence halls. The vote to approve the revision was 19 – 0 –
1, 2 ineligible.
9. The next agenda item was the mandate on Modifications to the Student Code. Professor Grogan
moved and Professor Sherman seconded accepting this mandate. Dr. Lelii noted that the mandate
seeks minor revisions with a view to revising the entire code in the near future. General Counsel
Debbie Fickler noted that the current code lacks clarity and needs to be examined more holistically.
Mr. Zajac offered an amendment to insert “sexual orientation” on page 25, number 9. Professor
Simmers seconded and the amendment was approved 19 – 0 – 0, 2 ineligible. The vote to send the
mandate to the two Student Affairs Committees passed 19 – 0 – 0, 2 ineligible. The return date is
April 2007.
10. A motion to adjourn was made by Professor Grogan, seconded by Dean DiAngelo, and
passed by a vote of 21-0-0. The meeting stood adjourned at 12:50 p.m.
To: University Council
From: The Executive Committee, University Council
Re: Proposed Revision of the University Calendar (4/20/2000 ver.)
Given: The current University Calendar (approved by the University Council on 4/20/2000)
identifies the following:
Tuesday
First:
CAS: College Council
HSB: Major College Committees
Second: CAS: Major College Committees
HSB: College Council
Thursday
Departmental Meetings
Minor Committees
Open
Third:
Faculty Senate Major Committees
(APP, FPP)
University Council
Fourth:
Faculty Senate
Open
Recommendation: Switch the monthly meeting designations for Faculty Senate Major
Committees (APP, FPP; see below) and the CAS College Council so that they will meet on the
1st and 3rd Tuesdays of the month, respectively. Also, shift the meetings of HSB: Major College
Committees and the HSB College Council forward one week beyond their current arrangement.
If approved, the revised calendar should become effective in the 2007-2008 academic year.
Tuesday
First:
Faculty Senate Standing Committees
(APP, FPP, Elections)
Thursday
Departmental Meetings
Minor Committees
Second: CAS: Major College Committees
HSB: Major College Committees
Open
Third:
CAS: College Council
HSB: College Council
University Council
Fourth:
Faculty Senate
Open
Rationale: Past experience has generally demonstrated that the current schedule does not
provide adequate time between the assigned meetings of the Faculty Senate Standing
Committees, Faculty Senate, and University Council to permit the most efficient and expedited
review of mandates.
Annually, the Faculty Senate Standing Committees are fully to be constituted by 9/30 and
subsequently meet for the first time in October. Given the current University Calendar, this
means that the earliest that a standing committee report can be returned to University Council is
November. However, it is rare for such expediency to be achieved as this schedule provides less
than one week for the standing committee to review a mandate, draft and submit a report to
Faculty Senate Executive Council, and, following review by the Executive Council, for the
mandate to be placed on the agenda for the next Faculty Senate meeting. Even less time is
provided for faculty to review documents before the Faculty Senate meeting. At this stage of the
governance process, if a report is approved by Faculty Senate it will be returned to University
Council for its next meeting, approximately 3.5 weeks later. If review of a mandate report by
Faculty Senate is incomplete or results in the return of the report to the standing committee, this
further delays return of the mandate report to University Council.
There are similar difficulties faced each month. Furthermore, the situation has been greatly
exacerbated by the quality and scope of mandates brought forth in recent years. It has not been
uncommon for mandate reports to require much more time before a final report is returned to
University Council given the magnitude of work required to adequately review the subject matter.
A more effective and efficient schedule could be achieved by switching the meeting dates of the
Faculty Senate Standing Committees with that of the CAS College Council.
If approved this recommendation would provide more time for:



APP &/or FPP to undertake a review and report back to Faculty Senate Executive
Committee,
Faculty Senate Executive Committee review of the report and for interchange with the
standing committee before the item is placed on the Faculty Senate agenda, and
Faculty review of mandates scheduled for the next Senate meeting.
A shift in the HSB Major College Committee meeting time would avoid the conflict for those
serving on a Faculty Senate Standing Committee and a HSB Major College Committee.
If approved, this recommendation would require the following adjustment to the current (2006)
Faculty Handbook:
Haub School of Business College Council Bylaws
Article IV—Meetings
A. The Haub School of Business College Council shall meet in a town hall forum no less
than once per semester, with the second third Tuesday of October during the free period
normally being the date of the Fall semester meeting and the second third Tuesday of
March during the free period normally being the date of the Spring semester meeting.
Faculty Senate Proposal for the Granting of an Award for
Lifetime Service at Saint Joseph’s University
Eligibility: A nominee must be a current faculty member at the time of nomination.
Rank: A nominee must hold the rank of associate or full professor.
Length of service: Normally, a nominee must have a minimum of twenty years of fulltime faculty service at Saint Joseph’s University. (Note that years spent as department
chair are considered to be years of full-time service.) The selection committee may
waive the time requirement in exceptional cases.
Criteria to be considered:
Primary indicators - service in university governance (University Council, Faculty
Senate) and on university-wide committees with a premium placed upon leadership roles
and significant accomplishments while serving on those committees. The boards and
committees include but are not limited to: Advisory Board on Faculty Compensation,
Academic Honesty Board, Academic Policy and Procedures, Budget Advisory
Committee, Board on Student Academic Review, Board on Rank and Tenure, Faculty
Policy and Procedures, Grievance Committee, Hearing Committee, Institutional Planning
Committee, plus one-time and periodic service activities including search committees for
the most senior administrators of the university (president, vice-presidents, associate
vice-presidents, deans), curriculum review, Middle States, NCAA Certification, and other
comparable activities.
Secondary indicators – college governance (CAS and HSB Councils), college and
departmental committees, and work with student groups and on student activities, which
include but are not limited to Orientation, Faith Justice, Project Mexico, Project
Appalachia, and Hand-in-Hand.
Although this award is intended to honor career achievements in uncompensated service
to the university, nominators may also list in their letters a candidate’s compensated
service, such as serving as departmental chair, program director, acting dean, etc.
The decision will be based on the primary and secondary indicators; however, nominators
may also note charitable, leadership, and service activities outside of Saint Joseph’s,
which may be included in the award citation.
Selection Committee: Initially, the selection committee will consist of the presidents of
Faculty Senate, CAS Council, and HSB Council, the chairs of AP&P and FP&P, the
deans of CAS and HSB, the chief academic officer ex officio, and the president of the
SJU chapter of AAUP ex officio. Starting with year three, the deans will rotate off the
committee, and the first two lifetime service award winners will join the committee. For
each succeeding year, the most recent award winner will join the committee and the
“oldest” award winner will rotate off. Each year, the provost’s office will call the first
meeting. The committee members will then elect a chairperson.
Nomination Process: Each year, a call for nominations along with a description of the
award and the selection criteria will be sent to the faculty by the provost’s office. In
keeping with other similar awards, these nominations will be due by April 15, and the
winner will be honored during commencement. Nominators will provide supporting
documentation and detail. A viable nomination will include a substantive rationale for
the nominee. The selection committee may pursue further investigation at its discretion.
It does have the option not to give an award if no suitable nomination is submitted during
a particular year.
2005/2006 - 07
PROPOSED MANDATE
FOR
UNIVERSITY COUNCIL
TITLE:
University Wide Life-Time Service Award (possibly titled “The
Distinguished Service Professor” Award)
OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of a lifetime service merit award to be awarded at graduation. If
such an award is deemed appropriate, to develop criteria for the award.
REASONS FOR PROPOSED MANDATE: While we have two awards in place that
recognize faculty’s lifetime achievements in teaching and scholarship (Christian R. and
Mary F. Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching, and the Tengelmann Distinguished
Teaching and Research Award), we currently have no lifetime award for distinguished
service. It is important to recognize faculty work with regard to shared governance,
academic freedom, and the mission of the institution; a university service award by
faculty for faculty is one way to proceed. This mandate asks for consideration of such an
award, to be awarded once in a faculty member’s lifetime, and for criteria and a selection
process to be developed.
Distinguished service awards are awarded at a number of institutions (State
University of New York at Albany and other SUNY schools, the Ohio State University,
University of Illinois at Chicago). A web search indicates that the kind of service
awarded depends on the funding source of the award (see attached information). i.e.
Ohio State’s awards are given by graduate students for distinguished service to the
graduate student community.
This proposed distinguished service award is for leadership in SHARED
GOVERANCE including service on the BAC, ABFC, IPC, hearing committee, BRT or
other university-wide committee. Such service and leadership should go beyond the
expectations for “normal” faculty service. The nominees should be currently members of
the faculty in full-time ranked teaching positions.
If such an award moves forward, it is suggested that the president of SJU AAUP or
his/her designee be an ex officio member of the selection committee.
RECOMMENDED FOR STUDY BY WHICH BODY?
_____ Faculty Senate:
Academic Policies and Procedures Committee
___X__Faculty Senate:
Faculty Policies and Procedures Committee
_____ College Council:
College of Arts and Sciences
_____ College Council:
Haub School of Business
_____ Standing Committee on Student Affairs, Full-time Undergraduate
_____ Standing Committee on Student Affairs, Part-time Undergraduate/Graduate
Signature:
_Ann Green, SJU, AAUP, Chapter President____________
Date:__4/3/06__________
Please forward to the Vice President of Academic Affairs who serves as Chair of the
University Council, along with complete documentation to substantiate the need for the
proposed mandate