FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT
2012-2013
John M. Parrish (President), Paul Harris (Vice-President),
Jennifer Pate (Secretary), Sue Scheibler, (4th Member)
This report reviews the major actions of the Faculty Senate during the 2012-2013 academic year, and
identifies tasks remaining which we recommend be completed by the 2013-2014 Faculty Senate and
which we refer forward to the incoming Executive Committee (and/or other committees as indicated).
 Special Committee on Clinical and Term Faculty Recommendations: The Special Committee on
Clinical and Term Faculty, chaired by Prof. John Dorsey, submitted its final report to the Senate.
The Senate’s first action after receiving the report was to refer the recommended language
changes to the Faculty Handbook to our Faculty Handbook and Academic Life Committee, and,
upon receiving its recommendations, modifying and approving the Special Committee’s
recommended language changes and sending these to the full faculty, which approved the
proposed changes by a margin of 88% to 12%. If approved by President Burcham, these
language changes will constitute one of the Senate’s major accomplishments in 2012-2013.
Beyond these language changes, next year’s Senate will need to address a further series of
policy recommendations from the Special Committee left unaddressed by the current Senate.
The following matters are referred to the incoming Executive Committee to prepare for the
Senate’s direct consideration in the fall: (1) the proposed creation/recognition of the categories
of research faculty and other affiliated faculty (these were recommended Handbook language
changes which the Senate chose to postpone consideration of until the fall); (2) advising the
Provost’s Office in the creation of a Faculty Service Report process and a promotional review
process for eligible clinical/term faculty; (3) making clinical faculty members eligible for LMU
grants and technology programs; (4) including all term faculty in social functions and general
email notices to faculty (already adopted regarding Senate communications and events, but
needs further dialogue and work on the administrative side).
The following matters are referred to the Senate Governance Committee for its
recommendations: (1) encouraging term faculty to participate more fully in university,
college/school, and departmental governance; (2) potentially adding representation for clinical
faculty members to the Faculty Senate.
1
 Teacher-Scholar Model Statement and Merit and Evaluation Study Group: At the request of
the Senate, a special ad hoc drafting committee of Senators was formed to compose a
statement regarding the Faculty Senate’s interpretation of the Strategic Plan’s injunction to
“Promote the Teacher-Scholar Model.” The Committee, composed of Sue Scheibler (chair),
Andrew Dilts, Elizabeth Drummond, Tim Shanahan, and Carl Urbinati, submitted a draft to the
Senate which the Senate revised and then approved unanimously. The statement, entitled “The
Teacher-Scholar Model at LMU,” consisted of a “Definition of the Teacher-Scholar Model,”
followed by a diagnosis of LMU’s current situation and suggestions for possible action steps in
three specific issue areas: (1) Reforming the merit system; (2) Addressing workload issues; and
(3) Hiring for the teacher-scholar model.
As instructed by the Senate, the Executive Committee has appointed an ad hoc committee to
review the current standing of the merit and evaluation question over the summer and bring
recommendations to the Senate on how to proceed. The Senate members who have agreed to
serve on this summer Merit and Evaluation Study Group are Franca Dell’Olio, John Parrish, Sue
Scheibler, and Carl Urbinati. Following the Senate’s instructions, the group will address the
following topics: (1) whether moving to a multi-year review process is desirable, and if so what
such a process should look like; (2) how the merit system can more accurately and sensitively
register degrees of excellence in all three areas of performance (teaching, scholarship, and
service); (3) whether it is desirable to adopt an evaluation mechanism with a more
differentiated scale and/or more possible merit categories, and if so what that system should
look like; and (4) whether changes should be made in how assessments of quality are made
and/or who makes them.
 Administrative Performance Review: In response to recommendations by the Faculty Senate,
and in consultation with the Deans’ Council, the Provost made the following decisions regarding
the performance review process for senior academic administrators. All senior academic
administrators will undergo both a midterm review (in the 2nd semester of their 2nd year) and a
comprehensive (360) review (in the 2nd semester of their 4th year). Both reviews will include a
broad survey of unit faculty that is anonymous and includes both open-ended questions and
specific scaled questions tied to the administrator’s formally defined job responsibilities. The
midterm review is intended to be primarily formative in nature, while the comprehensive (360)
review is meant to be both formative and summative, informing the President’s decision
whether or not to reappoint. In the comprehensive (360) review, additional interviews will be
done with the administrator’s direct reports, peers (administrative and faculty leadership,
including a significant number of faculty interviews), and supervisor and/or appointing
administrator.
While no specific joint recommendation from the Faculty Senate and the Deans’ Council was
reached regarding the question of how results of the comprehensive review will be reported
back to the faculty of the unit, the Provost indicated his general expectation that the process
adopted would satisfy the following principles proposed by faculty:
2
The Faculty believes it is of great importance that academic administrators who undergo
formal comprehensive (360 degree) performance reviews should, in conjunction with
the Provost and the President, report to the faculty of the unit on the outcome of the
review in order to establish that faculty input into the evaluation process has been
heard and given adequate weight.
Recognizing the potential legal limitations on publicly sharing input used in decisions to
re-appoint (or to set the terms and conditions of re-appointment) without the subject’s
consent, the Faculty expresses its desire and expectation that academic administrators
will voluntarily disclose information regarding the findings and outcome of the review
process with an appropriate degree of specificity and candor.
The Faculty requests that, with the consent of the subject of the review, the primary
results should be reported to the faculty of the unit in writing, identifying specific
leadership strengths and weaknesses (tied to the dean’s defined roles and
responsibilities) that were noted in the review, and specifying the main steps the subject
proposes to take as a result of the review. The subject’s supervisor should review and
approve the content of the written report, and should certify to the faculty of the unit
that the written report constitutes a fair characterization broadly representative of the
results of the review as a whole.
The method employed in the BCLA Dean’s review this year accommodated the requests to
include scaled questions closely tied to job responsibilities, and to increase the number of
individual faculty interviewed in the interview phase. It will be important for the Senate to
monitor how the reporting conditions are being met, and to recommend further changes to
strengthen transparency, accountability, and constructive feedback from faculty regarding the
performance of senior academic administrators.
 Committee Audit: Major achievements of the Committee on Committees in the ongoing
Committee Audit process in 2012-2013 include the following: (1) Significant improvements
made to the process for soliciting faculty volunteers for committee service and expediting the
process of filling the Committee directory, as well as careful review of the directory to identify
missing or inaccurate information; (2) Reviewing existing committee structures and beginning
the process of identifying committees that can be eliminated or consolidated with the work of
other committees; (3) Review and Senate approval of bylaws for a number of Committees,
including most of the Faculty Senate’s Committees, as required by the Senate Constitution.
For next year, the Committee recommends a range of steps to be considered by the Faculty
Senate. These recommendations are contained in the documents “Report from the Committee
on Committees to the Faculty Senate (April 25, 2013),” and “Recommendations to the Faculty
Senate from the Committee on Committees (April 25, 2013),” and are referred to the incoming
Executive Committee for consideration and action.
3
 Elections Recommendation: The Elections Committee approved a recommendation originating
with the Executive Committee that, for the next three years, the length of terms offered for
Senate seats currently vacant (or scheduled to come vacant) should be staggered to ensure that
a roughly equal number of seats comes up for election each year and that constituencies with
multiple seats have staggered terms to ensure the greatest frequency of elections within each
constituency. The specific plan for making this happen has been reviewed by the Chair of the
Governance Committee and the Parliamentarian and approved by both the Elections Committee
and the current Executive Committee. The plan is on file with the Senate’s Administrative
Coordinator, and is referred jointly to the incoming Executive and Elections Committees for
implementation.
 ESOF Recommendation: The Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty (ESoF) is charged
with competently representing faculty needs in the area of salary and benefits in cooperation
with the appropriate committees and administrators. For several years ESoF has been largely
defunct (either unpopulated or otherwise inactive) in representing the compensation and
benefit interests of faculty and staff. It is particularly important to establish a meaningful role
for ESoF now because revision of the faculty merit and evaluation process is expected to be an
important action taken up by the 2013-2014 Faculty Senate, in which ESoF should play an
important role. In order to establish an effective long-term role for ESoF, Senate President John
Parrish and ESoF Chair Carl Urbinati met with Vice President for Human Resources Rebecca
Chandler and agreed upon the following proposed procedure and role for ESoF to play going
forward, beginning in Summer 2013:
The ESoF Committee Chair will meet with the VP Human Resources during the summer
as she prepares comparator data for faculty salaries and benefits, providing feedback
and creating a report (which will eventually be provided to the Faculty Senate) to help
identify potential shortcomings of current faculty compensation and benefit policies,
and will provide these to the University Budget Planning and Comprehensive Benefits
Committees. With the approval of the Provost and President, the VP Human Resources
and ESoF Chair should present their findings to the Budget Planning Committee early in
the fall semester, near the beginning of budget hearings, to ensure maximum impact on
conversations regarding compensation as a component of the subsequent fiscal year’s
budget.
These recommendations are referred to the incoming Executive Committee for consideration
and action.
 Faculty Handbook Audit: The Faculty Handbook and Academic Life Committee submitted its
report regarding the Faculty Handbook Audit, the primary steps of which were completed
during the 2012-2013 academic year. The Senate approved a few of these changes by direct
action in its meetings in the late spring. The remaining recommendations, contained in the
4
document “Faculty Handbook and Academic Life Committee Recommendations (4/22/13),” are
referred to the incoming Senate Executive Committee for action by the Senate in the 2013-2014
year.
 Governance Recommendations: The Governance and Executive Committees created and
distributed a survey to each Academic Dean and each Faculty Senate member regarding the
practices of shared governance at the College/School level. The results of this survey, once
completed, are referred jointly to the incoming Executive and Governance Committees for
consideration and action.
The Governance Committee created a plan for an audit of the Senate Constitution and Bylaws
that was approved by the Faculty Senate. The Governance Committee has begun work
executing this plan, and the remaining steps in the Constitution and Bylaws Audit are referred to
the incoming Governance Committee for completion.
In addition, the Governance Committee recommends that a specific set of broad-based
governance-related issues needs to be studied and acted on by the incoming Senate. These
include: (1) Implementing recommendations arising from the committee audit regarding the
role of faculty committees in relation to administration (ex officio members, election and
selection of committee members, and areas of primary responsibility); (2) A general employee
audit, including faculty, staff, and administrators, including an audit and reckoning of contingent
faculty and an audit of numbers and functions of administrators; (3) The need to encourage
greater participation in and understanding of shared governance, including the function and
election of Senate members to encourage greater participation, and the question of contingent
faculty in departmental and other levels of shared governance. The Governance Committee
suggests that it may be desirable to institute a working group to look at these issues, specifically
in connection with Theme 6 of the university strategic plan. These recommendations are
referred to the incoming Executive Committee for consideration and action.
 Variable-Unit Courses – After reviewing the Reports from the Joint Task Force on Variable Unit
Courses and the Special Senate Committee on 4-Unit Courses and the Core, the Senate
approved the primary recommendations of each, with qualifications as described in the
minutes. Pursuant to the recommendations of the latter committee, the University Core
Curriculum Committee was requested to draft criteria for possible future core accommodations
if these are requested by Colleges and Schools and to report back to the Senate for feedback.
Their report has now been received and is referred to the incoming Executive Committee for
consideration and action.
 Other Senate Business 2012-2013: In addition to these main topics, other issues addressed by
the Faculty Senate include:
5

Providing feedback and guidance to the WASC Accreditation Task Force (chaired by Shane
Martin)

Providing feedback regarding the formation of a strategy for LMU’s graduate programs,
pursuant to Theme 2 of the Strategic Plan, to the Dean of Graduate Studies (Shane Martin)

Providing feedback regarding the recommended credit-hour policy proposed by the Academic
Planning Review Committee (APRC), as requested by Provost Hellige

Formally recognizing on behalf of the faculty the organization Graduate Students of Loyola
Marymount University (GSLMU) as the official voice of LMU graduate students, and pledging to
help them achieve their appropriate place in the shared governance of the university

Providing feedback to the Associate Deans’ Council regarding its draft Disruptive Student Policy

Receiving updated reports from the Office of Assessment regarding the most recent NSSE study
data

Receiving the final report from the Committee on the Comprehensive Evaluation of Teaching
(CCET), including its recommended Comprehensive Evaluation of Teaching Toolkit

Receiving preliminary recommendations from the Committee on Excellence in Teaching (CET)
regarding possible revisions to the University’s Honor Code, to be proposed formally next year

Providing feedback to the Provost on the proposed creation of a position of Director of the
University Core Curriculum (now “Administrative Director”)

Revising the Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (with the consent of the Provost) to resolve a
discrepancy regarding the voting eligibility of faculty in the first year of their tenure-track
appointment

Preliminary discussions regarding the need for a policy on appropriate circumstances for spousal
hiring at LMU

Request to the Provost to investigate the feasibility and advisability of providing LMU part-time
faculty with the ability to purchase group health insurance through LMU, along with a request
that he advise the Faculty Senate of his findings
6