Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2008

Attending:
Jeff Lowell, chair, Susan Appleton, Nancy Berg, Bill Bottom, Elizabeth Childs, Laureen Hill, Janet Rader, Carl Safe, Andrew Sobel, Bradley Stoner, Jay Turner, Pamela Woodard

Ex officio: Mark Wrighton, chancellor, Mark Rollins, Larry Shapiro

Guests: Kent Syverud, Eddie Lawlor, Joe Sklansky, Deanna Barch, Rob Wild

The meeting was called to order at 4:01.

1. Approval of minutes
2. Chancellor's report: The university has committed more financial aid resources to enable undergraduates from low-income families (annual income less than $60,000) to graduate without loans. The commitment includes current students. Initial funding is from unrestricted gifts; commitments from the four schools with undergraduate programs will be phased in; greater emphasis is on building financial aid resources. It is hoped that the loan-free financial aid program can be expanded over time to include more students. The policy will benefit approximately 10% of the current students.

   The university’s relationship with KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program), founded by Teach for America alumni, is an opportunity not only for the public school students who will be served, but also for the university faculty, students, staff and perhaps alumni who will contribute to the partnership.

   A new category of faculty, Professor of Practice, has been developed by the deans of the schools, and will be proposed below.

   The twenty-fourth institution, Tata Institute of the Social Sciences in Mumbai, India, has been added to the list of partners of the McDonnell Institute. Current McDonnell scholars will be traveling to New York in March. The trip will include an excursion to “Spring Awakening” - co-authored by alumnus Steven Sater – a breakfast hosted by Mayor Bloomberg, a visit with UN Secretary General, a private tour of the New York Stock Exchange, and a major alumni event.

3. Proposed Changes to the Tenure Document: Kent Syverud, Dean of the Law School, Eddie Lawlor, Dean of George Warren Brown School of Social Work, and Joe Sklansky, General Counsel.

   The deans are proposing two changes to the tenure document: adjusting the prior service credit policy, and adding the category of Professor of Practice. From the perspective of the deans these changes would facilitate recruitment of faculty with prior service who do not want to be reviewed for tenure after only two years, as well as meet the needs of the schools for teaching faculty from the practices.

   Potential concerns from the faculty perspective – as per the presentation - include the proliferation of faculty without traditional tenure, thus potentially raising issues of academic freedom and governance, as well as longer probationary periods for faculty who change institutions.

   The Professor of Practice is proposed for the Danforth Campus only (WUSM has a clinical track). Although it is meant to be a nontenured position, it could be for multiple years. It is intended for established and respected practitioners, such as Sandra Day O’Connor or Muhammad Yunus. Responsibilities for the professor of practice could include advising and administration, but not research. Each school would adopt its own written policies. Schools such as Duke and Vanderbilt Universities have a similar track and it has been very successful.

   The other proposed revision would allow prior service credit not to count toward the tenure probationary period when mutually agreed by the successful job candidate and the hiring entity (department, division, school).

   The next step would be to bring the proposals before the full Faculty Senate – the deans are hoping this will be with the Senate Council’s positive recommendation – and then to the Board of Trustees. After gaining approval, each school would then follow its own procedures to create the school’s policy regarding professor of practice.

   Discussion: The tenure clock varies from school to school, from five (Law) to ten years (Olin), as well as from university to university. The proposal would give more flexibility in recruiting.

   The GWB School of Social Work has been working on the idea of a Professor of Practice for over a year; other schools would be starting discussions after senate approval. Each school would create a policy to meet the institutional needs; individual schools could elect not to take advantage of this track. Because each of the other schools has not developed a policy, a number of questions could not be answered.

   The effect on the number of FTE’s (full-time employees) in Arts and Sciences was not known.

   Whether there would be a clear distinction between tracks and types of candidates during the recruiting process, as well as whether one can move between tracks – that is, to or from the Professor of Practice and a tenure-line position, would be decided by each school.

   It would not change the status of lecturer for most currently in that position, nor would it necessarily be in lieu of part time hires. Also, for professionals still active in their fields, individual schools could create part time professor of practice position(s).

   The effect of locking in people who would have no incentive to keep up with research, (especially considering how rapidly many of our disciplines are changing) was of some concern. As was: how would the university keep the title distinguished? How does one keep the category from becoming the same as lecturer, and the university from becoming a university of non tenure track professors?

   There could be a faculty oversight committee involved in the process of discernment to assuage faculty concerns. Reappointments would be subject to rigorous review.

   Each school would decide the criteria and process for promotion from Assistant Professor of Practice to Associate and from Associate to Full.

   The suggestion that there be a fourth step to the process of creating a new category, and that there be a broader university-wide review after each school fleshes out a plan, was rejected for potentially drawing out the process.

   The motion to table the issue passed. It was decided that more information was needed, as well as the opportunity to discuss the proposals with colleagues, and submit questions in writing. Since there will be another Senate Council meeting before the full Faculty Senate meets, this does not delay the process.

4. Report from the School of Arts and Sciences’ Faculty Council - Professor Deanna Barch, chair

   The Faculty Council is working on developing clearer guidelines for joint appointments between departments and programs. Prof. Jose Bermudez has received many comments on his draft, and currently Profs. Rich Loomis and Priscilla Stone are working with him to revise the document.

   Last year’s technology survey, headed by Prof. Rebecca Messbarger, revealed great diversity across the school regarding equipment available, skill sets and useful services. Dean Macias has formed a task force, and appointed Gina Frey, director of the Teaching Center, to respond to the findings of the survey. The report is due this week.

   The retirement survey yielded a very poor response, and is less critical in light of the new phased retirement option.

   The council is also working on issues regarding the role of service and leadership. Among the questions they are asking: How are junior faculty mentored? Are they being socialized away from service? Is there a gender gap? They are planning to do a series of focus groups – of junior men, of junior women, of senior men, of senior women – to gather opinions on service and leadership toward defining the issues.

5. Dr. Wild’s presentation on Washington University’s partnership with KIPP was postponed because of the hour.

5:29 Adjournment

Nancy E. Berg
Secretary, Senate Council