MINUTES FOURTH Meeting of the Villanova University Senate for Academic Year
2005-2006 in Bartley 1010 on Friday, DECEMBER 2, 2005 at 3:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, Chairperson; Mr. Christopher Meehan, Executive
Secretary; Professor Michael Mulroney, Parliamentarian
Mr. Jonathan T.Ambrose; Ms. Renna L. Antonio; Dr. Debra Arvanites, Dr. Sohail S.
Chaudhry; Mr. Richard Cullen; Mr. James J. Danko; Mr. John M. Elizandro; Mr.
Jason M. Ferreira; Dr. M. Louise Fitzpatrick; Dr. Catherine Hill (representing
Fr. Kail Ellis); Fr. Richard M. Jacobs, OSA; Dr. John R. Johannes; Dr. Barry C.
Johnson; Dr. Helen K. Lafferty; Dr. Gerald M. Long; Ms. Dorothy A. Malloy, Esq.;
Mr. Brian M. Murray; Dr. Carmen Peraita; Dr. James Peyton-Jones; Ms. Mary C.
Quilter; Mr. Patrick M. Sheldrake; Dr. Robert Styer; Mr. John A. Sylvia; Ms.
Eileen M. Thomasmeyer; Mr. Gavin W. Tully; Dr. Joyce S. Willens; Ms. Jennifer A.
Woytovich; Mrs. Selma Koury-Wunderlich (non-voting, representing the Alumni
Association President); Dr. Anthony Zygmont
Mrs. Barbara R. Nolan, Recording Secretary
ABSENT: Mr. Robert J. Capone ’62 (Notified In Advance Unable to Attend); Mr.
Ashish Desai; Fr. Kail Ellis, OSA (NIA); Fr. John J. Farrell, OSA; Ms. Kerry
Halleran; Dr. Frank I. Klassner (NIA); Fr. William McGuire, OSA (NIA); Dr. R.
Emmet McLaughlin (NIA); Ms.Sandra Toslosky Patterer ’93; Mark A. Sargent, Esq.;
Fr. John P. Stack, OSA (NIA); Ms. Dana Vellios; Dr. Barbara Wall
AGENDA:
INVOCATION AND READING OF NAMES OF DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY WHO HAVE PASSED AWAY DURING THE LAST ACADEMIC
YEAR – DR. BETH HASSELL
ANNUAL ADDRESS BY THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT
FR. EDMUND J. DOBBIN, O.S.A.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the OCTOBER 21, 2005 MEETING
II. POWER OF INTERPELLATION
a) Why are Art students only permitted to take 16 credit hours per semester?
b) Why is Dean Ryan Rost, Assistant Dean of Students-Judicial Affairs, the sole
person in charge of determining punishments on disciplinary matters as
opposed to a committee compiled of student and faculty members?
c) How do Villanova University’s annual faculty salary increases compare with
other schools’ annual faculty increases in this area and with aspiration groups
(such as Notre Dame, Georgetown and Boston College)?
d) Why are there openings for faculty and students on the Development &
University Relations Committee of the Board of Trustees that have not been
filled since the last Capital Campaign?
e) What is the status of the University Facilities Committee which has not had a
meeting since December 3, 2003 in relation to the renovations? How was the
University committee structure used on recent decisions made about
construction/renovation of buildings? What is the status of the functioning of
the Board of Trustees Physical Facilities Committee? What is the relationship
between the Board of Trustees Physical Facilities Committee and the University
Facilities Committee? When does student involvement get started and what level
of student input can be anticipated on the recent renovations?
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
IV. SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT – Senator Richard Jacobs, O.S.A.
V. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS & BLUEPRINTS ARTICLES
VI. NEW BUSINESS
__________________________________________________________________
The following Invocation was presented by Dr. Beth Hassell which included the
reading of names of deceased members of the Villanova University Community who
have passed away during the last academic year:
Prayer of Remembrance
December 2, 2005
Opening Prayer:
In the name of our God who shares divinity with us,
In the name of our God who shares humanity with us,
In the name of our God who unsettles and inspires us,
Let us give thanks and praise!
Reading: Wisdom 3: 1-9 – Reading by Dr. Helen Lafferty
We remember those Villanova Students who have died:
Matthew DeMizio
12/2004
Josh Hanlon
8/2004
Marty Mazanec
1/2005
Laura Mazzola
2/2005
Brian Anderson
5/2005
Jill Creedon
7/2005
Lighting of candle during moment of silence - Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis
*I am standing on the shoulders of the ones who came before me.
I am stronger for their courage; I am wiser for their words.
I am lifted by their longing; for a fair and brighter future.
I am grateful for their vision; for their toiling on this earth.
We remember those Villanova Faculty who have died:
Lawrence McGarry
11/29/2004
James Fee
11/21/2004
Robert Nally
12/5/2004
Theresa Christian
1/10/2005
Robert Garbarino
3/8/2005
Carlos Thillet
9/12/2005
Steven Frankino
9/27/2005
Nicholas Rosa
10/11/2005
Hsiu-Huo Yuen
10/31/2005
Lighting of candle during moment of silence - Dr. Mackey-Kallis
*We are standing on the shoulders of the ones who came before us.
They are saints and they are humans; they are angels, they are friends.
We can see beyond the struggles and the troubles and the challenge;
when we know that by our efforts things will be better in the end.
We remember those Villanova Augustinians who have died:
Terence O'Rourke,OSA 12/21/2004
William J Wynne,OSA 2/2/2005
Joseph D Keffer, OSA 2/6/2005
Edwin T Grimes, OSA 4/11/2005
Lighting of candle during moment of silence - Dr. Mackey-Kallis
*They lift me higher than I could ever fly.
Carrying my burdens away.
I imagine our world if they hadn’t tried.
We wouldn’t be here celebrating today.
I am standing on the shoulders of the ones
Who came before me. I am honored by their passion; for our liberty.
I will stand a little taller; I will work a little longer
and my shoulders will be there to hold the ones who follow me.
We remember those Villanova Staff Members who have died:
Sarah Kosopsky
9/27/2004
George Farrell
9/28/2004
Filomena Gagliardi
10/4/2004
Dorothy Cannon
10/8/2004
Lucy Eichman
10/21/2004
John Vasily
11/4/2004
A. Claire Callaghan
11/15/2004
Elizabeth Gundaker
12/9/2004
Cecelia Drain
12/23/2004
Harriet Bonds
1/21/2005
Wendell Anderson
2/14/2005
Claire McCrane
2/11/2005
Brian Coupe
2/14/2005
Theresa Scott
4/9/2005
Caroline Smith
5/7/2005
Therese Dougherty
3/9/2005
Mary Dinino
5/16/2005
Arthur Godshalk
6/14/2005
Henry Gryzewski
6/14/2005
Louise Kasl
7/1/2005
Marie Pastorius
6/25/2005
Vincent Bello
7/19/2005
Francis Sherman
8/25/2005
James Watson
8/29/2005
Norene Gravinese
9/23/2005
Lighting of candle during moment of silence - Dr. Mackey-Kallis
*They lift me higher than I could ever fly.
Carrying my burdens away.
I imagine our world if they hadn’t tried.
We wouldn’t be so very blessed today.
We remember over 100 Villanova Alumni who have died:
Lighting of candle during moment of silence - Dr. Mackey-Kallis
*I am standing on the shoulders of the ones
who came before me. I am honored by their passion; for our liberty.
I will stand a little taller; I will work a little longer
and my shoulders will be there to hold the ones who follow me.
My shoulders will be there to hold the ones who follow me.
Closing Prayer:
We give you thanks, for all Villanovans who have died.
Gentle One you have touched us.
You have loved us from the moment of our first waking.
You have held us in joy and in grief.
Stay with us, we pray
Grace us with your presence and with it, the fullness of our own humanity.
We commit ourselves to restore compassion to the human family
and renew the face of the earth.
In praise of our God we say.
Amen
* Standing on the Shoulders
Song by Earth Mama
The Chair thanked Dr. Hassell for her prayer.
The Chair welcomed the University President, Fr. Edmund J. Dobbin, O.S.A., to
the meeting to give his Annual Address to the University Senate. His address
follows:
UNIVERSITY SENATE
12/02/05
Since this should be my final State of the University Address, I thought it
would be appropriate to place my remarks in broader perspective than I
ordinarily would. (Don’t worry; in the interest of time, I will keep it in very
broad strokes.)
In my inaugural address more than 17 years ago, I began very idealistically and
somewhat abstractly by laying out what I considered to be the essentials of an
American, Catholic, Augustinian university. Under the rubric of “American” I
accentuated the distinctive emphasis among American universities upon
institutional commitments to intellectual freedom, integrity and the natural
synergism between learning and research.
As a “Catholic” university I stated that “we are deeply conscious of our
Catholic heritage and of our responsibility to bring the Catholic tradition to
bear on the intellectual and cultural climate of our time. We see no conflict
between being Catholic and being a university.” I spoke rather briefly about our
Catholic identity only because I tend to view “Augustinian” as an adjective
modifying Catholic because of Augustine’s enormous influence on the history of
the western Church and culture generally.
I reduced the “Augustinian” essentials to three. The first of these has to do
with the relationship between the mind and the heart: That dynamic reciprocity
between heart and mind, love and knowledge, with Augustine in his distinctive
way giving the priority to love. Hence, our frequently used slogan at Villanova:
Transforming Minds and Hearts. Even the detached, objective pursuit of the
scientist is carried along by what Augustine calls “the ardent love of
understanding.”
The second Augustinian essential flows right from that “primacy of love”: the
centrality of community. A community enlivened by God’s own love dwelling within
us is ideally the dynamic core of the academic, spiritual, social and cultural
life of an Augustinian university. I need not elaborate on that here. We hear a
lot about community at Villanova and I personally believe we experience it in so
many edifying ways, usually mindful of our failings. I would like to quote one
paragraph from this section on community:
“One of the positive signs of the times is our society’s growing awareness of
cultural differentiation within our world and within our own society itself.
There is a strong consensus developing within American higher education of the
need for preparing students to live in a more culturally diverse environment and
on the importance of institutions themselves reflecting that diversity. This
presents an exciting challenge to an institution which religiously and
culturally identifies itself as “catholic” in the literal sense of the term. It
is my firm conviction that a rich religious cultural tradition becomes richer
and its identity more sharply focused when it interacts intelligently with other
traditions. So again, the Villanova community hears the call to broaden itself,
this time to people of other race, color and economic class. Again the primary
motive is the ideal of community to which we aspire.”
Diversity and globalization continue to be challenges for us, but challenges
which we are taking very seriously. Note that from the outset we have viewed
them as rooted in our mission as a Catholic, Augustinian university.
The third and final Augustinian essential which I elaborated upon in the
Inaugural Address was the unity of knowledge. This, of course, has to do with
the connectedness of learning which takes place across the disciplines as well
as in the interplay between theory and practical experience, and between active
learning and research. Villanova has been making great strides in these areas
and our Academic Strategic Plan exemplifies this in abundance.
In the second half of the Inaugural Address I listed several concrete
objectives that I thought we should achieve. I take great delight in citing some
of these because we have achieved them all:
Villanova has no intention of increasing the size of its student enrollment. In
fact, our undergraduate population is now beyond our desired expectations…. In
the future we intend to reduce slightly and to control more carefully the size
of our student body. The growth for which we shall plan is a growth in quality:
quality of life on campus and quality in all programs.
On-campus housing for at least 1,400 more of our students than we can house at
present…. We shall plan this new housing to be aesthetically and functionally
conducive to the intellectual, cultural and social ambiance which we seek for
our students.
The additions or replacements of physical facilities, for which we are
strategically planning include:
a) New office space for faculty and administrative staff. (Current space is
woefully inadequate.)
b) A modern health care facility that will provide more adequately for the
physical and psychological well-being of the members of our University
community. (This will replace an infirmary that is more than fifty years old.)
c) State of the art science and engineering laboratories and seminar space to
provide the integrated quality of learning which we plan to provide.
Villanova needs desperately to increase its endowment.
In each of these cases we have met or far exceeded our expectations. To what do
we attribute this? - First and foremost a fabulously dedicated Villanova
community – internal and external.
Over these years we have been blessed with an extremely competent Board of
Trustees. I have often marveled at how exquisitely sensitive they have been in
recognizing the fine line between appropriate Board oversight and day-to-day
management of the institution. They have always had great confidence in all of
us and yet they carefully monitor us while providing excellent guidance.
In the early years of my administration, at my request, the Board helped us
structure a strategic planning process based upon Villanova’s core values. The
planning process entailed careful benchmarking with our competitors and most
importantly it fully integrated the University’s budgeting process extended out
over several years. In effect what this achieved was not simply a strategic plan
to guide us but a planning culture at the University. I cannot overemphasize
that point. When I refer to planning at Villanova I like to point out that the
word “planning” is a gerund, i.e. a verb in the form of a noun.
When we plan at Villanova our core values always drive the determination of our
goals and objectives and we do this in an ongoing consideration of the
opportunities and challenges of our changing times. We are not resistant to
change but we are always conscious of who we are and what we are called to be.
Over these years we have gone through several iterations of strategic planning,
beginning with the publication in 1991 of A Future of Promise. That broad vision
guided and was followed by numerous subordinate plans from the various colleges
and units of the University. These were coordinated and revised in an ongoing
way culminating most recently in our ambitious and carefully crafted Academic
Strategic Plan, Transforming Minds and Hearts.
It is not by coincidence that the title of our current capital campaign is
“Transforming Minds and Hearts” The Campaign for Villanova. This Augustinian
theme captures the essence of our academic mission at Villanova, and the purpose
of the capital campaign is to generate resources that enable us to carry out
that mission successfully. The University’s academic and overarching strategic
plans provide the specific funding opportunities with which we are approaching
our potential donors. We are confident that we will achieve our $300 million
goal.
As an illustration of our ongoing planning I will touch upon one general area
which is receiving much interest lately, i.e. campus and facilities. I even like
to root this in our Augustinian legacy in noting that in Augustine’s Confessions
every transition or conversion in his life is portrayed as taking place in a
garden. Be that as it may, few of us would deny that preserving the beauty,
functionality and ambience of this campus is a must for Villanova.
Since our strategic planning process began, we have invested more than $350
million dollars in the upkeep and development of this campus. We carefully
prioritize our facility needs as part of the strategic planning process. We are
extremely conscious of those who will come after us lest we overbuild the campus
denying them flexibility or leaving them an unacceptable level of debt.
Maintaining our A bond debt rating is important to us. We have been quietly
expanding the periphery of the campus to provide a buffer from our neighbors as
well as setback space for future planning. A few years ago we purchased the two
Sovereign Bank buildings and property on the southeast corner of Lancaster and
Spring Mill Road. The Bank leases the office space back from us. This is an
example of our providing for future unforeseen needs of the University.
Last year on this occasion I announced that we were commencing plans to
construct a new Law School facility on the grounds of the Villanova Conference
Center. We were confident that we could do this “by-right” i.e. without the need
to request variances from the Township. After considerable effort and
consultation, we realized that the steep slopes and the drainage situation on
the property were driving up the costs significantly. Also the efforts we were
considering to circumvent these problems presented unacceptable conditions for
the smooth running of the Law School at the site. During the first week of July,
I made the decision in consultation with Dean Sargent and the Chairman of the
Board to test the feasibility of the site on the north campus. Over the next
several weeks our facilities planners carefully studied the feasibility. I
myself with Board approval decided to separate the College of Nursing project
from the Law School because of the unconscionable added delay which would have
been entailed for Nursing. Now the construction of the two facilities will be
simultaneous.
The reason for confidentiality during the summer months was that we had to be
certain about the feasibility of the on-campus options before undoing the steps
that had been taken with the Conference Center proposal. The space above the SAC
parking structure was selected as the most expeditious for Nursing. Thirteen
years ago, when the structure was built, it was deliberately reinforced to take
two additional floors which we intended for generic academic space to be used at
our future discretion. Nursing will now have the convenience of being located on
the main campus with all of our other undergraduate colleges. We are now
carefully addressing the parking challenges with plans for a multilevel parking
structure on the other side of the tracks, hopefully to be connected to the main
campus by a pedestrian overpass.
When I referred in my address last year to these as so-called “100 year
decisions,” I did not have in mind that the decision process would take 100
years. Believe it or not, we have been working on these projects for over six
years with plenty of appropriate input. The Physical Facilities Committee of the
Board has been briefed on the status of the Law Project and the Nursing Project
at every meeting since the project has been under consideration. That committee
includes faculty and student representatives as well as trustees. I mention all
of this simply to contextualize the urgency for closure this past summer.
The special fundraising for the proposed Recreation and Athletic Facility is
moving along nicely as is the approval process from the Township. So we expect
to have three major construction projects moving forward concurrently over
coming months. One major project that I had hoped to have underway before I
stepped down as President was a final solution to our student housing
capability. As our student leaders are aware, we have been tentatively
considering possibilities of housing at a convenient off campus location that
would be tailored as a quasi “West Campus” for seniors. I am still capable of
dreaming!
Which leads us to the transition of leadership at the University - I am very
confident of a smooth transition over the next several months culminating on
June 1 when the next President, whoever he may be, will take office. That takes
me back to my earlier remarks about the “planning culture” and the fine people
that make up this University. We are sharply focused on who we are and what we
want to be and we are not resistant to change. In fact we welcome change. I
often reference words taken from a sermon of St. Augustine (and inscribed in the
seal of the College of C&F). Cautioning against complacency and inertia,
Augustine urged semper profice which I translate as “always onward and upward.
The President then opened the floor for any questions. Mrs. Selma
Koury-Wunderlich, representing the Alumni Association President, remarked that
over the last 18 years under Fr. Dobbin’s tremendous leadership so much has been
accomplished. Her question was that she wanted to know what the President would
personally like to see the University go forward with rather than just leaving
it up to his successor. Father responded that future accomplishments will not be
left up to his successor alone, but the planning going ahead will be based on
the Academic Strategic Plan which is an excellent, consistent plan to use to
move forward on University decisions. This is the general direction with which
the University would like to continue. The next President presumably will start
where we are with the planning culture and work with that planning culture to
bring Villanova forward. Of course, there will be changes, and there should be
when you have a transition of leadership at a University. Father emphasized that
the main point he wanted to show was that consistency is here and is already
built into the vision and the plan which was accepted three years ago. Father
stated that there should be many opportunities developing in the future as major
gifts are received through the Capital Campaign.
The Chair thanked Father for coming to the Senate Meeting and giving his Annual
Address.
I. MINUTES of the October 21, 2005 meeting were amended as follows: 1) Senator
Malloy corrected the word Selection Committee to read Special Committee on page
9, last paragraph; 2) Senator Quilter corrected the title Senator used instead
of Mr. D’Ignazio on page 9, last paragraph. A motion to approve the minutes was
made by Senator Mulroney, seconded by Senator Meehan, and unanimously accepted
as amended.
II. POWER OF INTERPELLATION
A. Dr. Catherine Hill responded to the first item submitted under the power of
interpellation: “Why are Art students only permitted to take 16 credit hours per
semester?” Dr. Hill stated that although she could not speak about the history
of the policy because she is not familiar with the entire history, she noted
that one stipulation for Art students to increase their credit hours includes
having a GPA of 3.5. She reported that, more importantly, this particular policy
is currently under discussion and is being reconsidered so that it is more in
sync with the rest of the university. The proposed changes include allowing Art
students to take six courses and possibly lower the GPA requirement. Dr. Hill
felt it was a fair question and one that should be reconsidered. Senator
Fitzpatrick commented that she did not think the Senate needed a forum for this
particular question and she recommended that in the future such issues should
first go to Dr. Johannes’ office, the Dean’s office or to the Academic Policy
Committee of the Senate. Dean Fitzpatrick stated that she is just suggesting
that when getting into particulars of academic programs, the issues should
commence at some place other than the Senate. The Chair reported that the
Executive Committee would take this issue under advisement. The Chair encouraged
students who would want to have some input into this particular policy to submit
their comments and recommendations to Dr. Hill.
B. A written response was submitted by Dean Pugh regarding the second item
listed under the power of interpellation: “Why is Dean Ryan Rost, Assistant Dean
of Students-Judicial Affairs, the sole person in charge of determining
punishments on disciplinary matters as opposed to a committee compiled of
student and faculty members?” A copy of Dean Pugh’s response was passed out to
Senators for their review and his comments are listed below:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Executive Committee of the
University Senate under the Senate's Power of Interpellation regarding the
question, “Why is Dean Ryan Rost, Assistant Dean of Students-Judicial Affairs,
the sole person in charge of determining punishments on disciplinary matters as
opposed to a committee compiled of student and faculty members?
Villanova’s Code of Student Conduct has adopted a centralized management model
for adjudicating judicial issues. This means that all alleged violations of the
Code of Student Conduct are forwarded to the Dean of Students Office. The Dean
of Students and his assistant, Ms. Ryan Rost, are responsible for reviewing
student conduct in general, educating students to appropriate community
standards, and, as necessary, assigning sanctions for the purpose of encouraging
compliance with those standards. By using this approach, we ensure that the Code
of Student Conduct is applied fairly, consistently, and uniformly for the entire
student body, rather than be interpreted and applied by several individuals.
Within the framework described above, it would be useful to describe the
judicial process. Upon receiving a complaint, the Dean of Students Office first
determines whether or not the allegation would constitute a violation of the
Code of Student Conduct. If it does, then the Assistant Dean of Students for
Judicial Affairs may schedule a meeting with the accused student. The accused
student and the Assistant Dean will review the factual allegations and discuss
the alleged violation; relevant facts received from students, faculty or staff
pertaining to the alleged violation are considered. Over the last six years,
about 95% the students have accepted responsibility for his/her conduct and a
sanction was issued. However, when responsibility for a violation is in dispute,
or if the facts of a specific incident are in question, the accused student may
request an administrative hearing where witnesses for both the accused and the
complainant meet with the Assistant Dean. Furthermore, if the potential sanction
for the alleged violation could result in suspension or expulsion, the student
may request, or the Assistant Dean may utilize, a hearing before a committee –
just as suggested in the question posed to the University Senate. We call this
committee a judicial board. It is composed of one student, one faculty member
and one administrator. The Assistant Dean of Students serves as the non-voting
chairperson to assure an orderly hearing and that fairness is observed.
Once responsibility is determined, the Assistant Dean of Students imposes a
sanction. In doing so, she considers statements made during the judicial
meeting; the prior disciplinary record of the student; disciplinary precedent;
the guidelines set forth in the Code of Student Conduct. She also factors in
comments, if any, made by members of the judicial board. For the last six years
about 75% of all sanctions have resulted in a warning – which is the least
severe form of sanction. If a sanction results in revocation of housing,
suspension or expulsion the student has access to another review process by
filing an appeal with the Dean of Students. For the last six years, about 25
appeals were filed each year.
In summary, the process and procedures used for adjudicating violations of the
Code of Student Conduct are intentionally designed to educate students, to
motivate good behavior, and to create community, while simultaneously holding
students accountable and responsible for their actions. Although the Assistant
Dean of Students for Judicial Affairs makes the majority of decisions regarding
sanctions, those decisions are not done in a vacuum and are always rendered with
the best interests of both the University and the student in mind.
I would also like to advise the Executive Committee that the Dean of Students
Office has been working with the Student Government Association (SGA) regarding
their interest in the judicial process. Last year, prior to student government
elections, the Dean of Students and the Assistant Dean of Students personally
met with current SGA President and Vice President to discuss their platform in
general and, specifically, to address their questions regarding the judicial
process. Additionally, this year the Dean of Students has been meeting with the
SGA Judicial Committee to discuss ways to better educate the student body about
the Code of Student Conduct.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
C. Dr. John Johannes submitted a written response, which was distributed to
Senators, concerning the question: “How do Villanova University’s annual faculty
salary increases compare with other schools’ annual faculty increases in this
area and with aspiration groups (such as Notre Dame, Georgetown and Boston
College)? Dr. Johannes’ response follows:
Answer. This question is a bit more complicated than it may appear on the
surface for several reasons:
· The terms of the question are a bit ambiguous – what exactly constitutes “this
area?”
· Villanova does not “aspire” to be like the three schools mentioned, although
we do often
benchmark against one or more of them for various purposes. What we normally do
is
compare ourselves to the admissions overlap group, which includes Boston
College.
· Not all institutions are willing to report their annual salary increases,
leaving gaps in the
data.
· Given the short notice, the Office of Academic Affairs was not able to collect
all the
relevant data.
· There were differences in the ways some institutions reported data to us.
Although most
gave a straight percentage, some reported a fixed percentage “plus X percent”
or “plus Y
dollars” for special equity or merit cases. When possible, we used the higher
number.
Moreover, Villanova, too, can report data in two ways since, for the past three
years, there
has been a $360,000 per year addition to the basic percentage salary increase
pool numbers.
In the accompanying data, we report the total, having translated the $360,000
into
percentage terms.
Comparisons (see chart below):
Overlap schools. The data on the five overlap schools show that in the last
three of the four years, Villanova’s percentage faculty salary increases
exceeded the average increase among the overlap institutions.
Area schools. In the last three of four years, Villanova’s faculty salary
increase rates have exceeded the average increase among the fifteen nearby
schools (including two former overlap schools) that reported data.
SALARY COMPARISON DATA:
Overlap schools for which data were reported to the Office of Academic Affairs
include: Boston College, Bucknell, Holy Cross, Lehigh, and Richmond. The order
in which the data are presented is scrambled and thus does not correspond to
this alphabetical list of institutions.
Neighboring schools for which data were reported to the Office of Academic
Affairs include: Arcadia, Bryn Mawr, Cabrini, Chestnut Hill, U. of Delaware,
Drexel, Eastern, Fairfield, Harcum, Haverford, Lafayette, LaSalle, Philadelphia
U., St. Joe’s, and Rosemont. The order in which the data are presented is
scrambled and thus does not correspond to this alphabetical list of
institutions.
SALARY COMPARISON DATA
School
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
Overlap Schools
School A
4.00
2.25
4.00
4.00
School B
7.30
2.50
3.00
5.60
School C
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
School D
4.00
3.00
NR
3.00
School E
3.50
2.50
3.00
3.75
Average
4.56
2.65
3.25
4.07
Villanova
3.50
4.60
4.25
4.50
Neighbors
School F
3.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
School G
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
School H
4.00
3.50
2.50
4.00
School I
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
School J
3.50
3.00
3.75
4.00
School K
5.00
5.00
5.00
NR
School L
4.00
0.00
2.00
3.40
School M
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
School N
0.00
2.00
4.00
NR
School O
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
School P
NR
NR
NR
4.00
School Q
5.40
4.50
3.50
3.50
School R
3.80
5.00
3.50
4.20
School S
5.20
3.00
4.00
3.00
School T
3.00
3.50
3.75
3.50
Average
3.85
3.46
3.57
3.74
Villanova
3.50
4.60
4.25
4.50
NR = No response/no data
D. Senator John Elizandro submitted a written response to the fourth question
which stated: “Why are there openings for faculty and students on the
Development & University Relations Committee of the Board of Trustees that have
not been filled since the last Capital Campaign?” His response follows:
In 1991 the Board of Trustees using its discretion decided that during Capital
Campaigns the role of its Development and Relations Committee would be better
served by the Campaign Steering Committee which meets in New York several times
each year during a campaign. The Steering Committee is composed of at least 20
top leadership University donors, many of whom are also members of the Board of
Trustees. The role of this Committee is absolutely crucial to the success of a
campaign and the Board is sensitive to what would be a redundant use of the time
of the Committee’s members if an additional committee were operative.
E. Mr. Robert Morro, Executive Director of Facilities Management, representing
Fr. William McGuire, reported on the final question raised under the power of
interpellation. It stated: “What is the status of the University Facilities
Committee which has not had a meeting since December 3, 2003 in relation to the
renovations? How was the University committee structure used on recent decisions
made about construction/renovation of buildings? What is the status of the
functioning of the Board of Trustees Physical Facilities Committee? What is the
relationship between the Board of Trustees Physical Facilities Committee and the
University Facilities Committee? When does student involvement get started and
what level of student input can be anticipated on the recent renovations? Mr.
Morro read the following statement:
The purpose of the University Facilities Committee (UFC) is to focus on
renovation and new construction. The UFC deals with major renovation,
construction and maintenance projects, (Minutes of the UFC, August 8, 1999). The
membership of the committee includes area Vice Presidents, the Director of
Facilities Management, the Director of Athletics and student and faculty
representation. The student is appointed by the student government organization
and the faculty member is appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs
in collaboration with the Faculty Congress. Each project is evaluated on a scale
of 0 to 4 for each of 6 criteria with each member of the committee voting. The
final number represents the importance of each project. The agenda of the
committee is open to any new projects that are forwarded to the chair.
Currently, there are more than fifteen projects that have been evaluated and are
waiting funding.
The University Facilities Committee rated the Nursing College on October 29,
1998 and the Law School on June 25, 1999. Once a site was located and funding
secured, the Nursing and Law School project was moved from the list of rated
projects in the University Facilities Committee to the Physical Facilities
Committee of the Board. This committee membership includes trustees,
administrators, faculty and students. The progress of the project is reported by
the Facilities Management Office of the University to the Board on a quarterly
basis. The external appearance of the building is reviewed and approved by the
Physical Facilities Committee of the Board who then recommends the project to
the full Board for review and approval. The programmatic phase (internal
configuration of the building) is developed by Facilities Management, the new
tenant and appropriate local committees of administrators, faculty and/or
students.
Garey Hall will be a minor renovation. As a minor renovation (determined by the
available funds), the use will be managed by the University Space Committee. An
example of a previous minor renovation is Vasey Hall.
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
The Chair, Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, announced that the biannual meetings
scheduled on Friday, November 18, 2005 between the Senate Executive Committee
and the President and then the Executive Committee of the Senate and the
Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees were cancelled due to the ongoing
search for a new President of the University. No future meetings have been
rescheduled, however, the upcoming spring meetings will be held.
IV. SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT
Senator Richard Jacobs, O.S.A. reported that the budget for the next academic
year 2006-2007 is now in the process of being revised and one final Budget
Committee meeting will be held in December 2005. The revised budget will then be
sent to the Administrative Planning and Budget Committee (APBC) for review. The
Vice President for Financial Affairs, Mr. Kenneth Valosky, will then present a
draft of the proposed budget to the Senate in February 2006 for their approval.
Fr. Jacobs then asked if there were any questions. Senator Cullen inquired about
how the University has worked out the loss of 500 students as a result of the
reduction in enrollment, how the tuition funds were made up and was it
accomplished through the raising of tuition? Fr. Jacobs replied that the
reduction process has taken place over a 15 year period and has been worked
through the budgeting process. The University is actually keeping on target with
the projected budget and there has been no loss of funds. This has been
accomplished through savings, raising tuition and dividends, plus there has been
a significant growth in endowments which should also be factored in. The Chair,
Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, asked Fr. Jacobs if the faculty salary raise pool has
been determined yet. The reply from Fr. Jacobs was that salaries are
confidential at this point until the Budget Committee releases this information,
however, he felt it was accurate to report that the type of model used last
year, which had been presented to the Senate demonstrating the projection for a
six years period, is what the Budget Committee is using for its current budget
operations and determination of salary increases. The Chair inquired if the 3%
annual increase for faculty salaries which had been projected as part of the six
year plan would continue and Fr. Jacobs confirmed this to be correct.
V. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND BLUEPRINTS ARTICLES
The Chair, Dr. Mackey-Kallis, opened the floor for topics for future agenda
items and Blueprint articles. She reported that the Senate will again be
initiating articles in the upcoming issue of Blueprints commencing with Fr.
Dobbin’s Annual Address presented at this Senate Meeting. Mrs. Koury-Wunderlich
suggested that Mr. Jay Wright, Head Basketball Coach, be invited as a guest
speaker at a future Senate Meeting and she emphasized that his presentation
would not just be about athletics, but about his motivation of students and how
he accomplishes it. The Chair stated that his name has been taken into
consideration and would be placed on the Senate’s list of individuals to be
considered for the future. The Chair stated that if anyone has any additional
names or suggestions to be considered for either future agenda items or
Blueprints, please e-mail this information to either the Chair or Barbara Nolan.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1) Senator Jonathan Ambrose responded to the Chair’s call for new business by
stating that Senators John Sylvia and Jennifer Woytovich had a proposal to
present to the Senate regarding “Disciplinary Judicial Board: Revising the
Current System to Encourage Student Involvement and to Stay Current and
Connected to American University Standards”. Materials containing background
information for their proposal and summary information were distributed to
Senate members for their review and consideration. The Summary, Proposal and
Conclusion presented are listed below:
SUMMARY: This proposal is presented to the Villanova University Senate in order
to address and modify a specific aspect of the University’s student disciplinary
process. That is, this is a proposal to modify the composition of Villanova’s
Appeals Board. By definition, an appeal is a resort to a higher authority, and
not a referral back to the original disciplinarian. Current Villanova
Disciplinary Policy states that the Judicial Board will act as a court of
appeals and consists of one student, one faculty member, and one administrator.
The Associate Dean of Students for Judicial Affairs also is a member of this
court as a non-voting member. It is the opinion of the writers of this proposal
that he Appeals Board at Villanova University is inadequate and inconsistent
with the values of the University, and in amending the judicial process
Villanova students will be better served by their University governance.
PROPOSAL
I. The Students Right to Appeal
A. Associate Dean of Students for Judicial Affairs, upon making any
disciplinary decision must notify the student of his or her right to appeal.
B. Basis for an Appeal
i. Student feels as though the discipline is unjust and does not fit the nature
of the alleged offense. Or,
ii. Complexities of facts of the case have changed and demand further review.
Or,
iii. Fines in Excess of $500. Or,
iv. The recommended disciplinary action includes suspension, dismissal, forced
resignation, or expulsion from the University.
v. The deadline for filing an appeal is two weeks from the day the student was
initially informed of the disciplinary action.
C. Students will file an appeal directly with the Dean of Students, or to
whomever the Dean acknowledges suitable to work in his absence, and will
ultimately decide whether or not to grant the appeal based on the above
criteria.
II. Revised Judicial Board of Appeals
A. The new Judicial Board will consist of five voting members.
i. Faculty Member: There will be one faculty member from Faculty Congress,
chosen by Faculty Congress, in whatever way they see fit.
ii. Administrator: There will be one administrator, chosen by the Dean of
Students. Note: The Dean of Students may not choose the Associate Dean of
Students for Judicial Affairs or whoever else may have acted as the original
disciplinarian.
iii. Students: There will be three student members. These students will be in a
pool of twelve rotating members that will be evaluated and appointed by the
University Student Senators. Pulling students from a pool of twelve ensures that
there will always be three students available, and also that any students that
may have conflicts of interest would not have to participate and would be easily
replaced by another member of the pool.
B. The new Judicial Board will be regulated by one non-voting member. The Dean
of Students, or whomever the Dean acknowledges suitable to work in his absence,
will preside over the hearing to ensure a fair and orderly trial.
CONCLUSION: It is the strong opinion of Senators Sylvia and Woytovich that a
revision to the University’s judicial process would greatly benefit Villanova
students. In addition, the above changes are in keeping with the spirit of
Villanova’s tradition and values, and would make Villanova a model university
for judicial excellence. It should be noted that this proposal is wholeheartedly
and unanimously supported by the University’s student senators. It is the hope
of these and other members of the Villanova University Senate that the above
proposal be discussed and approved without change at this December 2, 2005
Senate Meeting.
The above proposal will better serve the needs of Villanova students and the
university community as a whole. Upon the passing of this bill, it is the
expectation of the Senate that all recommended changes be implemented by
Wednesday, March 15th, or whatever other date the Senate deems is reasonable.
The proposal was presented to the floor as a motion for discussion by Senator
Ambrose, and seconded by Senator Mulroney, with the knowledge that a two-thirds
vote was needed to pass if a vote was taken on it. Senator Malloy informed the
Senate that according to the Senate Constitution in order for the Senate to
legislate on a proposal, it needs to be presented through a committee of the
Senate, in this case it would be the Student Life/Student Government Committee;
and/or it has to be presented to the members of the Senate in writing for review
prior to the meeting. She stated that there is no prohibition about discussion
of the content of the proposal, but some procedural difficulties are involved
with a Senate vote being taken on the proposal at today’s meeting. The Chair
asked Senator Malloy about one section in the Constitution which states that a
proposal can be introduced under new business, however, it requires a two-thirds
vote to pass as a motion. Senator Malloy clarified this by stating that it would
take a two-thirds vote to override the normal procedures of the Constitution. A
brief discussion followed to clarify points mentioned in the proposal. At this
point, the Chair presented the students with the opportunity to either entertain
a motion to vote to suspend the normal procedure (requiring a two-thirds vote)
and consider this motion; or to entertain a motion to remand this issue to the
Student Life/Student Government Committee for their consideration. Senator
Ambrose made a motion that a vote be taken to override the requirement that a
committee first consider legislation prior to the Senate voting upon this
proposal, which would suspend normal procedures. Senator Murray seconded the
motion.
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken with the following results:
All in Favor 17 Opposed 11 Abstain +1
The motion failed to pass with a two-thirds vote. Senator Johannes moved that
the motion be remanded to the Student Life/Student Government Committee,
seconded by Senator Styer. It was decided that the Student Life/Student
Government Committee should report back to the Senate at the next Senate Meeting
scheduled for February 3, 2006 on this proposal. This motion was passed
unanimously.
2) Fr. Jacobs thanked the Executive Director of Campus Ministry, Dr. Beth
Hassell, for the beautiful service presented at the beginning of the meeting and
a round of applause was given to Dr. Hassell.
3) Senator Cullen inquired about when the University Senate website would be
updated and was informed that the site had been updated as of last week.
There being no further business, a motion To Adjourn was made by Senator Jacobs
and seconded by Senator Ambrose. Adjournment took place at 5:05 P.M. The next
Senate Meeting is scheduled for Friday, February 3, 2006 at 3:30 P.M. in Bartley
1010.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher J. Meehan
Executive Secretary
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY SENATE
CJM:bn