minutes/3006/07-04-20.htm

MINUTES SEVENTH Meeting of the Villanova University Senate for Academic Year 2007-2008 in Bartley Hall, Room 1010 on Friday, APRIL 20, 2007 at 3:30 P.M.

PRESENT: Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, Chair; Professor Michael Mulroney, Parliamentarian

Dr. Sohail Chaudhry; Mr. James J. Danko; Mr. Ashish Desai; Mr. Robert B. Dormish; Fr. John J. Farrell, OSA; Dr. M. Louise Fitzpatrick; Mr. Stephen Geria; Ms. Rebecca M. Glover; Dr. Lowell S.Gustafson;
Fr. Richard M. Jacobs, OSA; Dr. John R. Johannes; Dr. Sarvesh Kulkarni; Dr. Helen K. Lafferty; Dr. Gerald M. Long; Ms. Kaleen Lynch; Dr. Emmet McLaughlin; Dr. Bijan Mobasseri; Mr. Thomas W. Nardi; Mrs. Mary C. Quilter; Mrs. Sally J. Scholz; Mr. Deepak Sharma; Fr. John P. Stack, OSA; Dr. Robert Styer; Dr. Mark Sullivan; Mr. Gavin W. Tully; Mr. Kenneth Valosky; Mr. John Von Euw; Dr. Joyce S. Willens; Mrs. Selma Koury Wunderlich (non-voting, representing the Alumni Association President)

Ms. Helen Heron, Recording Secretary

ABSENT: Mr. Robert Capone (Notified In Advance); Mr. Richard Cullen, (NIA); Fr. Kail C. Ellis, OSA (NIA); Mr. John M. Elizandro (NIA); Mr. Gary Gabrielle; Mr. Anthony J. Giresi: Dr. Frank I. Klassner (NIA); Ms. Dorothy Malloy, Esq.; (NIA); Ms. Sandra Toslosky Patterer ’93; Ms. Katelyn N. Sampson; Ms. Heather Scrudato (NIA); Mark A. Sargent, Esq.; Mr. John C. Stellakis, Executive Secretary (NIA); Dr. Barbara Wall (NIA) _________________________________________________________________________________

AGENDA:
INVOCATION – Father Richard Jacobs, O.S.A.

I.     APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the FEBRUARY 2, 2007 MEETING

II.     POWER OF INTERPELLATION

III.   ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
A. Date for ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING of the Senate for the 2007-2008 Academic Year – Friday, May 4, 2007 at 2:00 P.M., Bartley Hall, Room 2010
B. Announcement of the NEW FACULTY SENATORS for 2007-2008 - THANKS TO OUTGOING SENATORS
C. Beginning in Fall 2007, there will be an electronic dissemination of both the Executive Committee and Senate Minutes and Agenda. We will also be working on getting all Standing Committee Meetings Minutes and Agendas on the web.

IV. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Athletic Advisory Committee-Dr. Dan Regan
Rules & Review Committee – Dr. Robert Styer
Student Life/Student Government Committee –Father John P. Stack, O.S.A.
Academic Policy Committee-Dr. Bijan Mobaserri
Committee on Faculty –Dr. Q. Chung

V.      REPORT ON ENDOWED CHAIRS – Dr. Q. Chung

VI. REPORT FROM FACULTY CONGRESS – Dr. Lowell Gustafson

VII. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REGARDING COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AND ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE (see attached item #2)

VIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REGARDING ADDING THE ALUMNI PRESIDENT TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (see attached #1)

IX. RULES AND REVIEW COMMITTEE EVALUATION OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

X.          NEW BUSINESS

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M.

The Chair, Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, asked for a moment of silence to commemorate the memory of
those involved in the Virginia Tech tragedy.

The Invocation was given by Senator Richard Jacobs, O.S.A.

Let us pray.

All-powerful Lord,
when You created the heavens and the earth,
You breathed order into the chaos
and brought peace and quiet
where outrage and terror otherwise reigned.
And when You saw that all was good,
You rested—“Shabbat Shalom”!

The specter of outrage and terror has sought to rule anew
where peace and quiet should reign.
Universities exist so people might rest
—the Romans called it “otium”—
and the members of these communities
might consider thoughtfully what the Good requires
and then use their talents to breathe order into this chaotic world.

On this day of mourning for the victims, the heroes and heroines,
the survivors, and for Cho Seung-hi:
We beg You to breathe Your Spirit of order anew
into the chaos which has visited the Virginia Tech community.
Help its members to see the Good
and to consider thoughtfully what it requires in these days
so they may rest in “Shabbat Shalom”!

We pray also for ourselves:

Keep our Villanova community safe so that we can focus upon the Good;
Help us to consider thoughtfully what the Good requires of us in these days;
  and, inspire our hearts with courage to do what the Good requires.
May we come to experience Shabbat Shalom
  in this community where You have placed us
  and which You have entrusted to our care.

With hearts full of gratitude for Your many blessings,
we make our prayer in the name of Christ, our Lord and Savior.

Amen.

The Chair thanked Senator Jacobs for his prayer.

I. The MINUTES of the February 2, 2007 meeting were moved for approval as written by Senator Lafferty;                   seconded by Senator Von Euw and unanimously approved as submitted.

II. POWER OF INTERPELLATION

III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE:

1. Beginning in Fall 2007, there will be an electronic dissemination of both the Executive Committee and Senate Minutes and Agenda. We will also be working on getting all Standing Committee Meetings Minutes and Agendas on the web.

2. The date for the ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING of the Senate for the 2007-2008 Academic Year is Friday, May 4, 2007 at 2:00 P.M., Bartley Hall, Room 2010

3. The Executive Committee has requested that the Rules and Review Committee examine the possibility of amending our Constitution in order to make a Senate Standing Committee on Staff. Such a committee would parallel the Committee on Faculty and Committee on Student Life/Student Government. This resulted from a discussion that Dr. Mackey-Kallis had with Father Donohue regarding the Climate Survey. Some of the indications were that staff was least satisfied with their role in decision-making at the university. This was then sent to the Rules and Review committee where discussion has begun regarding the process of revising the Senate Constitution to include such a committee as well as determining how such a committee would be comprised and how elected. They are working on these issues and hopefully will have an amendment prepared for publication for our September meeting of 2007 and then on the agenda for our voting at the October 2007 meeting.

4. The Chair welcomed the new student senators who have recently been elected. Dr. Mackey-Kallis expressed how pleased she was that they could join us today and invited them to attend our Organizational Meeting in May.

IV. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Athletic Advisory Committee: Dr. Daniel Regan, Chair

ATHLETIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REPORT TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

APRIL 20, 2007

The Athletic Advisory Committee of the University Senate met on January 17, 2007 in the Office of the Athletic Director.

The Committee had received inquiries from the faculty, especially from faculty who had in their class, freshmen members of the men’s basketball team. The team including these freshmen missed an entire week of classes during the Fall semester.

There is a formal scheduling policy published by the Athletic Department for all teams to create a quality experience for all athletes. Unfortunately, during the Fall semester, two problems cropped up with the travel to one of the tournaments for the Men’s Basketball team. The departure flight to the tournament scheduled a year in advance was canceled by the airlines. The option of a charter flight was too costly. The return flight was delayed because of the weather. This was an unusual situation. Villanova’s team is in demand now for tournaments and we are able to pick and choose which tournaments in which to participate. Some of these tournaments will pay for housing and travel. The consideration of the students’ schedules will be a prime concern when choosing tournaments in the future as it has been in the past.

The very good news from the Athletic Department and the Office of Academic Support for Athletics is the GPA for student athletes for Fall 2006 was 3.071. Sixteen teams had a GPA of 3.0 or higher; this is a total of 315 students of 58% of the student athletes. Twelve student athletes had a GPA of 4.0.

The target time for the opening of the new athletic facility is October 20007. It will house facilities for the Women’s and Men’s Basketball program as well as a student facility. The softball field will be on Pike Field since the new College of Nursing building will be built on the former softball field next to the Health Services Building. The outdoor track will be refurbished during the Summer of 2007.

The Big East has a new TV contract which will be in effect until 2013. ESPN2 will be hosting the NCAA tournament.

Football is moving to the Colonial conference.

Submitted by Daniel T. Regan, Chair.

Rules & Review Committee: Dr. Robert Styer, Chair, gave the following report:

In the 2006-2007 academic year, the Rules and Review Committee reviewed the Executive Committee of the Senate and then reviewed the full University Senate. We appreciate the many members who completed our surveys and for the thoughtful responses to the open-ended questions.

The smooth functioning of the Senate Executive Committee impressed us. As our report summarizes, “The Executive Committee is composed of very responsible members who work comfortably together in a very organized manner.”

Our committee just completed the review of the entire Senate. We are thankful that you take time to read this report. Overall, we believe that the Senate deserves praise for accomplishing its primary goals. The Senate works in a collaborative manner and the committees of the Senate follow through on assignments and projects in a timely manner. In the interests of continual improvement, our report notes some areas where the Senate can improve its effectiveness. One suggestion in particular deserves extensive debate---the Senate should clarify its legislative role in relation to the President.

The Rules and Review Committee is thrilled when we note that some of our past suggestions appear in Senate Committee minutes. For instance, this spring the Budget Committee minutes had an extensive discussion of our recommendations in last year’s report. We note that several committees have some form of orientation for new members. We also have discussed the benefits of continuity in student representation, and are grateful the SGA has considered changes in their elections procedures.

The Rules and Review Committee is charged to carefully consider any suggestions for changes in the Senate Constitution. Over the past few years, the committee has considered several, some of which appear on today’s agenda. We are confident that you will give these amendments the serious and critical attention they deserve.

Sincerely submitted on behalf of the Rules and Review Committee,
Robert Styer, 2006-2007 Chairperson of the Rules and Review Committee

RULES AND REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE EVALUATION OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AS APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2007

Commendations:
The Rules and Review Subcommittee---
1. Commends the Senate Executive Committee for their diligence in the spirit of cooperation and collegiality in fulfilling their many tasks as evidenced in the well-documented minutes of their meetings.
2. Commends the Senate Executive Committee for following through on their many tasks with open communication within the University Community.
3. Commends the Senate Executive Committee for guiding the University Senate by establishing the Senate agendas so that consideration is given to all members and their constituents.

RULES AND REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE EVALUATION OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE AS APPROVED ON APRIL 11, 2007

Recommendations and Observations of the Rules and Review Committee:
1. The Senate is a well run organization. The administrative processes of publishing agenda, minutes, and providing materials are excellent.
2. Clarify the “legislative” role of the Senate (Articles III and VIII of the Constitution define the scope of that authority). The concern here is not so much with the details or outcome of a particular case (the parking issue) as with the precedent set by the University as a whole in not insisting on adherence to procedures written in the Senate Constitution. An alternative action is for the Senate to deliberate the value of amending the constitution so that the University President has the power of a line item veto on legislation passed to him by the University Senate. See addendum for full discussion.

3. When appropriate, place time limits on reports to the Senate by invited guests or committees. Perhaps, several days prior to the meeting, the presenter could e-mail a synopsis of key points to the senators. This would enhance the efficiency of the meeting time and the quality of discussion.
4. Use electronic media to better publicize the deliberations and specific contributions of the Senate. Since the meetings are recorded, selected content could be made available on the web at www.villanova.edu/unit/itunes. The use of pod casts may provide an effective means to communicate specific messages to the constituencies of the university. Promote open Senate meetings to the constituencies through e-mail notification, pod casts, and electronic bulletin boards.
5. The Web Site is an excellent communication tool and contains links to Constitution, minutes of            Senate meetings, and membership of the committees.
a. Ensure the web site is maintained (links to the March 2006 meetings with Fr. Dobbins, President, and the Board of Trustees are not operative)
b. Consider including minutes of each committee’s meetings on the site.
c. The site states: “The Executive Committee of the Villanova University Senate is an advisory group to the University President and the Board of Trustees on policy and major decision-making issues.” The Constitution does not identify the Executive Committee as and advisory group. If in fact the Senate is an advisory body, versus a legislative body, then a revision of the terminology in the Constitution is appropriate. If not, then the description on the site should be changed to more accurately reflect the Senate’s and the Executive Committee’s legislative responsibilities.

6. The lack of attendance at the Senate meetings is a concern. On average, based on the minutes, thirty-two percent of the Senators are not present for meetings. The Senate has an existing process in the Constitution for addressing chronic absenteeism and is encouraged to confirm the effectiveness of that standing process.

Conclusion:
We applaud the work of the University Senate and trust the information in this report enhances its effectiveness and efficiency.

Student Life/Student Government Report: Father John P. Stack, O.S.A. gave the following report:

STUDENT LIFE/STUDENT GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

APRIL 20, 2007

The Committee is composed of 15 members of the University community and met six times during the 2006-2007 academic year.

Each meeting provided the opportunity for the SGA President, the leaders of major student organizations and the Vice-President for Student Life to give an update and note issues from their respective areas.

In addition, Bob Morro from Facilities, Tom Demarco from Residence Life, and Nancy Dudak from the Career Services gave presentations to the committee.

Following are some of the topics that were discussed by the committee:

o Master Plan for the campus
o Athletic Facility
o Law School (with parking structure in Spring Mill Lot)
o Nursing School
o Basketball Lottery
o Digital Cable
o West Campus side door access
o Residence Life- Summer ‘06 renovations
o Triples in the Residence Halls
o Lease space from Harcum and Rosemont
o Police activity and the campus response to the neighborhood shooting
o Extended Shuttle Service
o eSuds Program
o Car accidents on Lancaster Avenue
o One Book Program
o Endowment at Villanova University
o Senior Class Gift committee
o Civility and Respect on campus – email incident – offensive graffiti

Report on Academic Policy Committee: Dr. Bijan Mobaserri gave the following report:

Report of
Academic Policy Committee
To
The University Senate
April 20, 2007

Bijan G. Mobasseri, Chair

Academic Policy Committee (APC) is a standing committee of the University Senate that “Formulates policy on academic matters affecting more than one college; work with the Scholarship, Calendar, University Core Curriculum and Library committees”. For 2006-2007 the committee consisted of 29 members including six students and 23 faculty and administrators. By the end of the academic year the committee will have met six times. Here is the summary of topics discussed in chronological order.

Faculty exchange
Sabbatical leaves are an excellent opportunity to broaden ones horizon by working, teaching and learning at other institutions. Sabbaticals, however, do not come around very often. Committee discussed possible models for faculty exchange. A faculty exchange program attempts to facilitate faculty interaction at a frequency more often than what sabbatical leaves allow. Several models were discussed ranging from reciprocal exchanges to individual visits. Although the idea of faculty exchange was worthwhile, it became clear that devising an exchange that is equitable in all aspects is difficult. Issues raised included pay scale differential, housing etc. In the end it was decided that exchange decisions be handled at the college and department level once candidates have expressed interest. With ever increasing rise of Villanova faculty profile, such exchanges may become more common.

Outside Work by Faculty
The current university policy on outside work has not kept pace with the times. Faculty is generally allowed one day of consulting a week with relatively weak oversight. Outside teaching, however, is much more regulated. Disciplines that have limited consulting possibilities are therefore at a disadvantage. A specific case was brought up by a faculty member and discussed in committee. Although the particular outside teaching position was indeed a prestigious one, the faculty had difficulty securing necessary approvals. With Villanova’s profile on the rise, such opportunities are bound to come up more. The VPAA informed the committee that there is indeed a major effort underway to revise faculty handbook on outside work by faculty to reflect tremendous changes at Villanova since the original policy was written.

Distance Learning
With distance learning becoming more mainstream, the borderlines have become increasingly fuzzy. Many programs are now offering all-distance learning degrees. Should faculty be required to teach in distance learning mode? Should a concurrent distance learning section be counted as part of teaching load even though faculty is not obligated to offer a parallel distance section? Should there be additional compensation for such parallel sections? Formal policies, to the extent that they exist at all, are college or even departmental specific. Much discussion ensued. In the end in light of the variety of programs, courses and compensation models such decisions were left to individual colleges. It should be understood, however, that different policies may apply to very similar conditions depending on the program.

Academic Policy Implications of a Pandemic
The university is in the midst of drawing up plans in case a pandemic strikes. There are academic issues if the pandemic results in closing of the university for weeks, perhaps months. The committee discussed various scenarios including continuing classes via distance education facilities, continuing the semester to make up for lost time, issues of contracts and compensation. The university-wide pandemic policy being developed will have to address these issues at some point. APC will provide input once the draft document is available.

Endowed Chairs
The university has seen a considerable rise of the number of endowed chairs. However, many are
unaware how the process actually works. This topic was discussed at APC and as a result the VPAA prepared a written explanation detailing the selection process, duration, donors and other pertinent information. This issue was later taken up by COF.

CATS: five lowest scoring questions
As a matter of curiosity the committee asked for the five lowest scoring questions on CATS form. Data extracted by OPTIR showed the “bottom 5” to include 7 questions. However, what is noteworthy is that the mean rating of the so called bottom 5 are actually quite high (4 and higher). Only one question appeared in all 5 colleges (Q23- I found the course intellectually stimulating) with mean rating from ranging from 3.95 to 4.54.

Common exam scheduling, due dates and incompletes
Scheduling common exams for multiple section courses are always a challenge. Inquiry was made at the Registrar to learn more about the policy. The committee was assured that the every effort is made to accommodate faculty requests. Evidently, all requests have been honored this year. The Registrar also informed the committee that many courses do not hold a final exam thus add to room scheduling problems. As a result of this discussion, the VPAA is now asking faculty to notify the Registrar in advance if no final exams is planned.
Spring due dates are uncomfortably close to the last day of exams. This issue was discussed with the Registrar to see if there is a possibility to have two deadlines, one for the graduating seniors and one for others. The Registrar provided a thorough analysis of the proposal. Considering other deadlines in play such as academic standing, summer school registration as well as complications of managing two grading cycles, it was decided that there is not sufficient grounds to alter current practices. Few courses actually have a final on last day.
Incomplete (N) grades given out in spring have to be removed in the middle of summer. This deadline may be difficult to meet for students who are no longer on campus. The Registrar indicated that it is possible to extend an N grade by another N grade if proper notification is made with the Registrar.

Academic Calendar
Dr. Johannes presented 2009-10 and 1010-11 and 2011-12 tentative calendars. After some discussions the committee approved the calendars.

Remaining Agenda
The committee will meet one more time to discuss a process for the evaluation of the academic
impact of the laptop program and Speaker and Events policy.

Senator Dormish asked if the Committee was going to follow up in any way regarding the CAT scores. Senator Mobaserri replied that since the lowest scores are very high, they really did not feel as though there was a need to address this issue.

Report from the Committee on Faculty (COF): Dr. Q. Chung gave the following report:

Villanova University
faculty congress

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY
Academic Year 2006-2007

Report of the Committee on Faculty (COF) to the University Senate

April 20, 2007

The Committee on Faculty is composed of 14 members — 5 from A&S, 3 from VSB, 2 from Engineering, 2 from Nursing, 1 from Law, and 1 at-large (Vice Chair of the Faculty Congress). Five of the 14 COF members are University Senators. The 2006-2007 membership roster appears at the end of this report.

In general, COF responds to the calls from the University Senate, the Faculty Congress, and the Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA) to (1) discuss policy-related issues concerning the faculty, (2) make nominations of faculty representatives to University committees, and (3) administer nomination processes of awards. The following is a summary of the activities of COF this year, in chronological order, up to mid-April 2007.

1. On the Religious Holidays

In response to the call of the VPAA, COF provided feedback on the Proposal Statement on Religious Holidays, for inclusion in the Faculty Handbook.

2. Definition of Collegial Governance

COF adopted the Definition of Collegial Governance (formerly, “Definition of Collegiality”), which originated from an earlier effort of the Middle States Accreditation Goal #9 Subcommittee. The document is posted on COF Web site, and was forwarded to the President, the VPAA, the Faculty Congress, the Goal Statement #9 Co-Chairs (Drs. Jack Johannes and Helen Lafferty), and to the University Senate (by way of this report for future consideration of University-wide adoption; see Attachment A).

3. Study of Endowed Chairs

Under the Power of Interpellation, a series of questions were raised at the University Senate meeting on April 21, 2006 regarding endowed chairs. The questions were referred to COF. The tasks performed by COF include: (1) fact finding, (2) identification of the issues to be addressed, (3) consulting with the VPAA in search of resolutions, and (4) preparation of the report to the Senate (see Attachment B).

4. Facultas Award

Facultas Award is given each semester by Faculty Congress to a staff member who has been of special help to the faculty, but who might not otherwise receive recognition. On behalf of the Faculty Congress, COF administered the selection process of fall 2006 Facultas Award by inviting nominations from the faculty, examining the nominations statements, and selecting a winner from a pool of 23 nominees. A small award ceremony was held on March 22 at the Faculty Congress meeting.

The selection process for the spring 2007 semester is currently underway.

5. Nominations for the Board of Trustees Standing Committees

In response to the call of the VPAA, COF invited nominations from the faculty for the faculty representatives at four Board of Trustees Standing Committees, namely Academic Affairs, Investment, Physical Facilities, and Student Life. COF forwarded the nominees to the VPAA.

6. Nominations for the Lawrence C. Gallen, O.S.A. Faculty Service Award

In response to the call from the President, ten faculty members were nominated to the Gallen Award this year. Following the guidelines a nominating committee was formed. The committee reviewed the nomination materials, selected three finalists, and submitted a report to the VPAA.

7. Eligibility Criteria for the Lindback Distinguished Teaching Award (LDTA)

COF, along with the Faculty Congress, was asked to examine the eligibility criteria for the Lindback Distinguished Teaching Award. Based on the original communications from the Lindback Foundation, it was determined that all full-time faculty members, including faculty teaching in graduate programs, were eligible for the Award, whether tenured or on the tenure-track or otherwise. The Faculty Congress resolved thus. COF was further asked by the Faculty Congress to study the possibility of other teaching awards. It was determined that the current budget structure did not allow additional teaching excellence awards.

8. Pandemic and Disaster Recovery Policy

COF, along with the Faculty Congress, was asked to study the potential impact of large-scale unexpected events that may force the University less than fully functional for part of an academic year, from the faculty perspective. The Faculty Congress formed a subcommittee to address the issues.

9. Consideration for Policy on Academic Citizenship

The VPAA asked COF to consider the issue of academic citizenship by identifying what would be reasonable expectations in terms of on-campus presence of faculty and availability for office hours. COF will be discussing a draft that has been written.

In carrying out the activities listed above, COF held seven meetings and one more meeting is scheduled to be held in May. In addition, COF members also participated in online COF meetings for various balloting, as well as regularly scheduled Faculty Congress meetings and an informal meeting with the President along with the VPAA and the Chair of the Faculty Congress.

All COF meeting agendas and minutes, as well as its other official documents, are available online on the following Web page:

http://www.villanova.edu/facultycongress/cof/index.htm

Respectfully submitted,

Q Chung, Chair
On behalf of the Committee on Faculty members

A&S: Seth Whidden, Richard Jacobs*, Jeffrey Johnson, Joseph Schick, Susan Mackey-Kallis*
VSB: Sohail Chaudhry*, Q Chung, Victoria McWilliams
Engineering: Frank Mercede, Sarvesh Kulkarni *
Nursing: Linda Copel, Barbara Ott
Law: Michael Mulroney*
At-Large: Lillian Cassel (Vice Chair of the Faculty Congress)

University Senators are denoted with an asterisk.

[Attachment A]

Definition of Collegial Governance
September 21, 2006
Revision (Feb. 16, 2006) of the COF draft of March 2005

Collegiality is an essential element of the spirit of community in any academic institution, and above all in one such as Villanova University, whose unique character derives from its Augustinian tradition and mission as well as from the particular character of its constituent groups, including the University’s sponsoring organization, the Province of St. Thomas of Villanova of the Order of St. Augustine. Collegiality entails mutual understanding, respect, and trust among all these groups, based upon their shared sense that it is in the common interest of all to cooperate in promoting the general welfare and the mission of the academic community. At Villanova, the University’s founding principles of Veritas, Unitas, and Caritas, or truth, unity, and love, shape its mission and foster an especially intense spirit of collegiality. In the words of its mission statement, Villanova is “a community of persons of diverse professional, academic and personal interests who, in a spirit of collegiality, cooperate to achieve their common goals and objectives in the transmission, the pursuit and the discovery of knowledge.” Hence the spirit of collegiality is central to [OR: an essential dimension of] Villanova’s mission.

Collegiality is also essential to the structure and process of university governance. Given the diversity of its constituent groups and its goal of advancing truth and knowledge, collegiality is unlikely to be expressed by the equal sharing of authority and power, nor by rigid hierarchical patterns. Instead, all constituent groups within the University community, including the Board of Trustees, administration, faculty, students, staff, and alumnae/i, are interdependent. In the joint effort to promote the University’s mission, each group bears special obligations and primary responsibilities for matters lying within its particular area of expertise or legal jurisdiction, as defined by the institution’s Charter and By-laws, and as shaped by its traditions and character. Hence each group within the University community must acknowledge and respect the particular roles of the others, and each must also strive to work in a spirit of openness with all the others, communicating fully and freely on matters of common concern, in order to maintain that atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation essential both for collegiality and the advancement of truth. Moreover, collegiality must reflect the principle of subsidiary, whereby the authority for decision making resides at the lowest level commensurate with the necessary legal jurisdiction, information, and resources and responsibility for action should be as decentralized as possible. When a member or constituent group engages in decision making that significantly affects the rest of the University community, subsidiary requires systematically and appropriately involving other members and constituent groups (or their duly-constituted representatives) in the process. In this way the community reflects its commitment to the advancement of truth in a decision-making process informed by unity and charity.

Circumstances may well arise in which strict adherence to this more intensive form of collegiality may not always be possible. So as to avoid undermining this special collegial spirit of Villanova University in such cases, it is the obligation of those who bear primary responsibility to inform the members of the community through an appropriate medium concerning why an abrogation of collegiality was necessary. They will thereby demonstrate respect and honor for all members and constituent groups, and further encourage their active participation in governance and decision making.

[1] The draft of March 2005 was by Susan Mackey-Kallis, based on previous drafts by Jeff Johnson and Rich Jacobs; the present draft was revised by Jeff and Rich, with input from Susan. We propose this draft for approval by the Committee on Faculty on February 17, 2006; if COF approves this draft, it will be submitted to the University Senate for further discussion and action, beginning with the Rules and Review Committee (or Mission and Social Justice Committee).

[Attachment B]

V. ENDOWED CHAIRS AT VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY

Report to the University Senate
The Committee on Faculty

[REVISED]
April 20, 2007

BACKGROUND

Under the Power of Interpellation, the following questions were raised at the University Senate meeting on April 21, 2006:

How are endowed chairs renewed at Villanova? What is the term of the chair? What are the criteria for renewal? Is there a process for renewal and what is it? Is it posted on the Web and/or how is it posted?

Subsequent to responses of Dr. Johannes, the following additional questions were raised:

What is the process the University gets endowed chairs in the first place, rather than how a chair is renewed? (The general impression is that endowed chairs are supposed to be outside international or national scholars.)

Are the criteria for an endowed chair currently on a Web site?

Has it become a practice, if not policy, at Villanova University that it is not recruiting world class scholars to the University because we are able to endow chairs internally to offset expenses within the institution?

These questions were referred to the Senate Executive Committee, to Faculty Congress, and in turn to the Committee on Faculty, leading to the current report.

The Committee on Faculty wishes to acknowledge that Dr. Johannes has provided all the information needed to complete the fact-finding process.

FACT FINDING RESULT

Number and Types of Endowed Positions

Presently there are 14 Endowed Chairs, 2 Endowed Deanships, 2 Endowed Professorships, and 1 Fellowship at Villanova University. The 14 endowed chairs and 2 professorships are detailed in the below table.

Donor
Title of Chair
Initial Recipient
Inauguration
Additional Recipients
Date of Transfer
Evaluation Benchmark
Josephine C. Connelly (deceased)
The Josephine C. Connelly Chair in Christian Theology
Rev. Michael Scanlon, O.S.A.
12/2/92

David R. Cook (deceased)
The David R. Cook Endowed Chair in Philosophy
John D. Caputo
3/30/93
William Desmond
6 wks F2005 & and F2006 Visiting; F2007
2012
Edward Daylor and wife, Marjorie Smith (both deceased)
The Edward A. Daylor Chair in Environmental Engineering
G. Lee Christensen
12/14/94
Chadderton
8/2000
2005
2010
James R. Birle
The James R. Birle Endowed Chair in Energy Technology
Edward V. McAssey, Jr.
2/21/95
Al Ortega
8/2005
2010
Robert M. Birmingham
The Robert M. Birmingham Endowed Chair in Core Humanities
John A. Doody
9/17/98

2003
2008
The Connelly Foundation
The John F. Connelly Chair in Management
Matthew J. Liberatore
10/15/98

2003
2008
John A. Murphy, Esq.
The John A. Murphy Endowed Chair in the College of Commerce and Finance
Robert H. DeFina
3/17/99
Ray Taylor
8/2004
2009
Augustinians of the Province of St. Thomas of Villanova
The Augustinian Chair in the Thought of St. Augustine
Gerald Bonner
9/22/99
Jim Wetzel
8/2005
2010
Thomas G. Labrecque
The Thomas G. Labrecque Endowed Chair in Business
Joan Lamm-Tennant
11/11/99
Stephen Andriole
8/2001
2006
Charles A. Heimbold, Jr.
The Charles A. Heimbold, Jr. Endowed Chair in Irish Studies
Peter Fallon
2/15/00
Rotates annually;
Justin Quinn
S2007
Rotating
Fred J. Springer
Fred J. Springer Chair in Business Leadership
Stephen Stumpf
8/2002

2007
Dr. and Mrs. Robert Moritz, Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. Robert F. Moritz, Sr., Endowed Chair in Systems Engineering
Kenneth Muske
8/2006

2011
Richard J. and Barbara Naclerio
Richard J. and Barbara Naclerio Chair in Business
Ronald Hill
10/06

2011
Herbert G. Rammrath
Herbert G. Rammrath Chair in International Business
Jonathan Doh
4/07

2012
John Cooney
John Cooney Professorship in Accounting
David Stout
9/99
Tim Monahan
1/2004
2009
Richard & Katherine Salisbury

Katherine M. & Richard J. Salisbury, Jr. Professorship in Finance
David Nawrocki
8/02

2007

Terms of Endowed Chairs and Professorships

An endowed chair or professorship carries a five-year term, with the understanding that it will be renewed at the end of each five-year period, provided that the teaching, research, and service of the particular faculty member continue to be commensurate with the standards for endowed chairs or professors. The donor gives $1 million to establish a chair ($500,000 for a professorship). Specific benefits vary greatly, subject to both the availability of funds from the endowment and any administrative appointments the holder may have during the five year term. Until several years ago, there was a fixed and pre-determined set of benefits. For new chairs and recent renewals, the chair holder can select from several options.

The goal for endowed chairs, specifically, is to grow this to a level sufficient, given the 5 per cent payout rule, to recruit outside scholars on new faculty lines. Since none of the chair endowments are large enough now, all current chair holders are either internal faculty members or were hired on an existing tenure-track line.

The endowed chairs and professorships have five year terms, renewable upon recommendation of the dean and VPAA, following a comprehensive performance review. So far, all chair holders have been renewed, unless they chose to step down. All but one of the chair holders has been male. The selection and expectation criteria for chairs and professorships are somewhat different, with the latter being less extensive than the former.

Each year, 5% of the three year running average value of the chair’s or professor’s endowment is put into the general faculty salary fund to underwrite the holder’s salary. Through the budget process, an amount of money is made available — the amount depends on the size of the endowment — to offer the chair holder or professor a cafeteria-style list of options: travel funds, supporting a graduate student, buying secretarial help, summer stipend, buying a course reduction, etc. In return, the chair holder or professor is expected to be very productive in terms of teaching and research, to demonstrate good citizenship and leadership in his or her college and the University, and to be an example to graduate students and junior faculty. The chair holders also prepare an annual report for the dean and the donor and meet periodically with the donor.

Spirit of each Endowment Expressed by Donor

Information of this kind is confidential between the donor and the University, but each donation is accompanied by a legal document spelling out the chair's title, general duties, amount of funding, and purpose of funding. Although the language varies, generally it refers to salary and support for the chair holder or professor, payment schedule to the University, and so on. Donors give the money for a variety of reasons, with usually quite general specifications. These are negotiated with the donor by the Development Office and/or President.

Documentation of Appointment and Renewal

Any such records would be classified as a personnel matter and not subject to release or review. There is no formal protocol, and, over time, these have been handled differently. Appointment of endowed chairs lies totally with the discretion of the President, who seeks formal advice from the VPAA, who seeks the advice of the dean, who seeks the advice of various others, depending on the nature of the chair and the circumstances.

Process of Initial Appointment

Because the endowments for chairs are not large enough to fund an external person yet, the deans solicit internal nominations, have them reviewed by an internal group, and sometimes send the names to external reviewers for evaluation. This process varies, and there is no codified process. The official policy is that the dean recommends to the VPAA, and the recommendation is cleared with the President. Great care is taken, of course, but in the end, it is a VPAA judgment call.

Criteria and Process for Renewal

The criteria for renewal are captured in the following two sentences of the appointment letter:

Through their activities, achievements, and demeanor, holders of endowed chairs symbolize Villanova’s commitment to scholarly and educational excellence. They are expected to provide leadership to their colleges and departments in terms of scholarship, curricular development, pedagogy, grant-seeking, professionalism, and other aspects of academic life.

Towards the end of one’s term, the holder of the chair submits a five year report, based in large measure on his or her annual reports for that time. The report is evaluated by the department chair and college dean, who have the ability to seek advice from other faculty or outside scholars.  If they agree that the terms have been met, they recommend to the VPAA that the appointment be renewed. The VPAA may review the materials for himself before renewing the appointment.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Definitional Issues

The positions need to be redefined. Are they truly endowed chairs comparable to those in other universities with nationally or internationally recognized scholars, and to be held practically perpetually? Should some if not all be referred to as professorships, which can be given internally, non-perpetually, and regardless of rank, and yet can promote and recognize excellence? Answering these questions may eliminate current inconsistencies with the reality.

Transparency

Criteria and qualifications for the positions need to be made clear and transparent. Also, such criteria should be adhered to, publicized, and celebrated when a holder is newly appointed to the position and/or is renewed.

Faculty Initiative

Once an endowment is established, the remainder of the selection and renewal processes should be left with the faculty, which is capable of not only capable of self-governing and decision making but who represent significant discipline expertise.

Balanced Representation of Colleges and Diversity

Allocation of such endowed chair positions needs to be re-evaluated across colleges in order to ensure fair representation. The case in point is the Sciences, which are grossly underrepresented. There has also been only one woman chair appointed to date.

RESOLUTIONS

Given the above issues, the Committee on Faculty in consultation with the Vice President of Academic Affairs reached the following resolutions:

1. The criteria used for appointment (e.g. position advertisement) and criteria for renewal of endowed chairs and endowed professorships will be disseminated via the VPAA web site.

2. Appointment of endowed chairs and endowed professors will be administered by a joint committee of college administrators and senior faculty appointed by the dean. The committee’s composition should include, along with others chosen by the dean, a majority of faculty, including faculty members from the department whose discipline is represented by the endowed chair or endowed professorship.

3. Although the specific deliberations of each selection committee would not be public, information about the selection process (e.g. committee composition, timeline) and the results of this process (awards made), including the recipient's credentials, and accomplishments over the five-year period in the case of renewal, will be disseminated via the College web site.

4. The COF recommends that all appropriate efforts be taken to maintain fair balance among colleges in terms of the number and types of endowed chairs and professorships and strive for greater diversity in appointment (e.g. gender, ethnicity) in the future. The President is aware of this COF recommendation.

Discussion of the Endowed Chair Report then ensued as follows:

Senator Farrell remarked that in this report there seems to be no definition of why we have academic chairs. It is his understanding that Villanova is hoping to get an academic chair for someone outside of the university to leaven the present group. He understands that we must take into concern the financial aspect of doing this. He stated that we have an obligation to the donor. He feels as though we need to think “outside of the box” to decide where we are going to get the financial resources to bring in more notable chairs from the outside, such as a Nobel Laureate.

Senator Johannes remarked that out of the current roster of endowed chairs there are five from the outside. He feels that the purpose of recruiting highly qualified people has been met. In the past, he noted that endowed chairs were a way of recognizing a donor’s gift. Recently, we have done it more strategically and been more successful.

The Chair questioned Dr. Johannes as to whether it would be a possibility whereas the donor would be identified and the contract would state that for the first three years it would be used to hire internally and eventually could be combined with another chair. She stated that once the chair was able to establish its own money, it would return once again to its previous status.

Senator Johannes responded by stating that with an endowed chair the going rate is a million dollar donation, which means about $50,000 per year. This is considered a small amount of money when you are talking about reducing the course teaching load, providing summer funds or providing research assistants. In fact, 100% of what is paid out off of the endowment is used to offset salaries. That is the contract that we signed with the donor. Then the university, through its normal budgeting process, takes other money and makes it available for the endowed chair holder to pursue research and other activities. He feels as though, theoretically, it would be possible. However, we would have to ask every donor to give up their name on their chair.

Senator Farrell explained that he did not expect everyone to be a Nobel Laureate, but that there are people who are much more recognized than the faculty at Villanova.

Senator Fitzpatrick remarked that Villanova is probably at least twenty years behind the times in terms of what they are expecting the donation to be to endow a chair. She stated that most schools that she is familiar with are up to approximately two million dollars. She feels that we do have excellent scholars here at Villanova, but there is also the world class scholar that we want to attract. She thinks we must consider what is that scholar doing? What research is being produced, what kind of grant funds are they bringing in that will continue to bring prominence to that department, the university, etc?

Senator Farrell agreed that most of the people that he could think of could generate funds. Perhaps, things like research, graduate assistance, etc. might be able to generate funds to pay for that.

Senator Mackey-Kallis asked Senator Johannes if there has been any consideration in Development to pursuing a two million dollar endowed chair.

Senator Johannes explained that to his best knowledge the Development Office has maintained a one million dollar chair precisely to maximize the number of gifts. He noted that it is true that many universities have gone as high as three million dollars for endowed chairs. He also stated that there are still a number of schools that maintain half million dollar chairs. His own view is that we are light on that number, but that is a strategic decision that is beyond his control.

The Chair questioned whether the particular amount of money that an endowed chair brings in terms of grant money is part of the renewal process?

Senator Johannes suggested that the problem with insisting that they bring in grant money to fund their research is that if we are going to insist on that, then why would they want to come here? If, where they are, the university is providing them that research, what is the incentive to come here? He emphasized that we would like every one of our chair holders to be active in pursuing funds, and a few of them are, but there is a trade off.

VI. REPORT FROM FACULTY CONGRESS

Report of the

2006 – 07
Faculty Congress

Lowell Gustafson
to the University Senate
April 20, 2007

The seal of the university is at the base of the spiral staircase in the St. Augustine Center for the Liberal Arts, a building in which many faculty have their offices. This seal portrays the symbols of the foundation of this university, including a passionate commitment to understanding and love, recognition of life’s many trials and tests, the need for responsible leadership, a search for transformation and commitment, and a confidence in the success to be gained through the pursuit of knowledge in the context of lasting relationship. It is possible while climbing the staircase to trip on memos, newsletters, resolutions, deadlines, emails, curriculum vitae, reports, unintended slights, and a thousand other steps that must be taken. Most of the time, the staircase leads to places where we can read and write, meet with our students, and hold conversations with our colleagues. Sometimes, as we ascend this staircase, we notice its apogee, with its windows that open the view to the skies and welcome the light.

At those times, we make use of our God-given faculties of sight, hearing, memory, and speech as we seek to develop our abilities, our faculties to make friends, to learn, to reason together. When we meet with each other to discuss our common interests, when we associate with each other, when we come together, then we meet in congress. When we succeed in this Faculty Congress, we touch the soul of the university, the soul that calls its students from around this commonwealth, this country, this world.

It was in that spirit that Fr. Peter, Dr. Johannes, and the deans of Arts and Sciences, Business, Engineering, and Nursing addressed the Faculty Congress this year, offering their views of how this university can build on its foundations and how faculty are integral in the construction of university wide programs. As a result, faculty in all the colleges have initiated a range of common projects, such as those in Entrepreneurship, Political Economy, International Business and Culture, and many others. Boundaries between departments and colleges are being re-examined as interactions between them increase. At our meeting with him, Dean Danko praised the theology major who later gets an MBA and commits to a life creating wealth for a world in need.

In an era of globalization in which the meanings of national boundaries are changing, the mission of a catholic university has grown to include the humanization of world affairs – the transformation of purely economic transactions to an appreciation of common obligations and relations – of unitas and caritas – among wonderfully diverse peoples. Villanova’s motto is not to be repeated mindlessly, but to serve as an inspiration to offer creative options to a world too often caught in myopia.

A variegated faculty with diverse abilities and strengths contributes to this important task. Adjunct faculty and tenure track faculty have each formally participated in university governance; now, following our recent referendum, the full time, non tenure track faculty too will have a defined place in our conversations.

The most transforming moment of St. Augustine’s life came when he responded to the call to “Take up and Read.” He then went on to also discuss and challenge and console and teach and learn and wonder. Faculty resonate to the call for a life long passion to do just that, and are justifiably proud to live in the light that shines on the foundation shared by the entire Villanova community, as together we climb toward the views of beyond.

VII. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REGARDING COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AND ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE
At the Rules and Review 30 Nov 2006 meeting, the committee recommended an amendment which is designed to give faculty Senators more flexibility in choosing between the APC and COF committees, as well as giving the elections committee more flexibility in filling vacancies.

Current University Senate Constitution:

Article VIII, Section 2: The Academic Policy Committee shall consist of
sixteen elected faculty (six of whom are also University Senators)...
Article VIII, Section 5: The Committee on Faculty shall consist
of fourteen elected faculty members (five of whom are also University Senators and one of whom shall be the Vice Chair of the New Faculty Body/ex officio/).

Appendix A, Step 2, under Academic Policy Committee: The 11 elected Senators (not Law) will be polled as to interest on the committee and 6 senators will take the seats assigned to their constituency. ...

Appendix A, Step 2, under Committee on Faculty: The 12 elected Senators will be polled as to interest on the committee and 5 senators will take the seats assigned to their constituency.

Proposed Amendments:

Article VIII, Section 2: The Academic Policy Committee shall consist of sixteen elected faculty (at least four of whom are also University Senators)...

Article VIII, Section 5: The Committee on Faculty shall consist of fourteen elected faculty members (at least four of whom are also University Senators and one of whom shall be the Vice Chair of the New Faculty Body /ex officio/).

Appendix A, Step 2, under Academic Policy Committee: The 11 elected Senators (not Law) must choose to serve on either the APC or COF committee, but with a minimum of four Senators on each committee. Senators will be polled as to interest on the APC committee and at least four Senators will take the seats assigned to their
constituency. ...

Appendix A, Step 2, under Committee on Faculty: The 12 elected Senators will be polled as to interest in serving on the APC or COF, but at least four Senators must choose COF seats assigned to their constituency. The Law Senator may choose to serve on COF.

Senator Mackey-Kallis asked Senator Styer if he could update the Senate as to what was happening with this amendment.

Senator Styer explained that there are eleven regular faculty senators, of which the original idea was five would be on COF and six on APC. Therefore, if every senator serves on one committee, this would increase the communication between the Senate and the two board committees of the Senate. He found that a problem arose because we elect senators in Arts, Science, Commerce, Finance or Engineering, but we elect the Academic Policy Committee by sub-disciplines. Because of this, we may elect two or three senators from the same sub-discipline and there are just not enough seats for that. This would allow extra flexibility to move people around. For example, he stated that our Chairperson, Senator Mackey-Kallis, as a courtesy moved from APC to COF just to avoid these problems.

Senator Styer asked to move this motion on behalf of the Rules and Review Committee. This motion was passed unanimously.

The resolution will be forwarded to Father President Donohue for his consideration.

VIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REGARDING ADDING THE ALUMNI PRESIDENTTO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
“The Executive Committee shall consist of the Presiding Officer and the Executive Secretary of the Senate, the Chairperson of the Faculty Congress plus one other faculty member, two administrators, the President of the Student Government Association plus one student member, one staff person and the President of the Villanova Alumni Association or the delegate named by the VUAA President, elected for one year terms by and from the membership of the Senate. The Chairperson of the Executive Committee shall be the Presiding officer of the Senate.”

Father Farrell asked the Senate to table this motion until both Alumni senators are present; Seconded by Senator Quilter.

   All in Favor      32          Opposed 3 Abstentions 0

The Chair reminded the Senate that when a motion is tabled, it stays tabled until such a time as someone moves to bring it back to the table.

IX. RULES AND REVIEW COMMITTEE EVALUATION OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
RULES AND REVIEW COMMITTEE EVALUATION OF
THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

APPROVED ON APRIL 11, 2007 BY THE RULES AND REVIEW COMMITTEE

Process Employed:

This report is based on the information sources noted below. Members of the Rules and Review subcommittee provided summaries of their assessments of the responses and data; that information is compiled for this report.

1. A survey that consisted of twelve questions using a Behavior Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) to assess the frequency of a described behavior and four open-ended response questions. A sample survey is attached to this report.

2. Analysis of 20 anonymous responses to a questionnaire sent to 60 past/present Senators. We sent the survey, twice; the response rate was 33%.

3. The minutes of the University Senate covering meetings during the academic years 2004-2005, 2005-2006.

4. The Senate’s website: http://unisenate.villanova.edu/

5. Observation of the February 2, 2007 Senate meeting.

Summary Statement:
The University Senate is a collegial body that is proud of the university-wide scope of its responsibilities and the importance of the topics they address. Respondents indicated the activities of the Senate are organized with agenda and minutes published in a timely manner for all meetings. The Senate works in a collaborative manner and the committees of the Senate follow through on assignments and projects in a timely manner.

There is an undercurrent of discontent with the effectiveness of the Senate’s ability to legislate, as opposed to recommend. There is a perceived disconnection between the legislative responsibility of the Senate and the actual disposition of some of its work. Many respondents believe the Senate simply recommends policy, not legislate it. Seventy three percent of the respondents report participation as an area of concern; analysis of the minutes substantiates that the average attendance rate is 67%.

Survey Insights:
The survey asked respondents to respond to the following open-ended questions, the frequent responses follow the statement/question:

· I like that the Senate…
§ Represents all constituencies throughout the university: Students, Faculty, Staff, Alumni, and Administration.
§ Affects university policies
§ Is a forum for discussing important issues affecting the university
§ Provides an agenda and minutes for all meetings


· I wish the Senate…
§ had more influence on university policy
§ Actually legislated instead of recommending
§ Had better support among the faculty
§ Was more assertive
§ Operated more efficiently

· What are the contributions of the University Senate?
§ Common benefits for birth and adoptive parents
§ Costs of Parking permits
§ Transit cost benefits
§ Criteria for endowed chairs
§ Annual budgetary issues
§ Topics submitted under the Power of Interpellation, defined as: to question (as a foreign minister) formally concerning an official action or policy or personal conduct

· Suggested actions to improve the effectiveness/efficiency of the Senate…
§ Clarify the Senate’s power to legislate policy, as stated in the constitution, and not just recommend policy.
§ Limit speaking time of outside guests to enhance efficiency of meetings
§ Allow Deans to alternate representation with their Associate Deans
§ Initiate term limits to provide a periodic infusion of different views
§ Provide feedback on the rationale behind the veto or modification of legislation

Recommendations and Observations of the Rules and Review Committee:
5. The Senate is a well run organization. The administrative processes of publishing agenda, minutes, and providing materials are excellent.
6. Clarify the “legislative” role of the Senate (Articles III and VIII of the Constitution define the scope of that authority). The concern here is not so much with the details or outcome of a particular case (the parking issue) as with the precedent set by the University as a whole in not insisting on adherence to procedures written in the Senate Constitution. An alternative action is for the Senate to deliberate the value of amending the constitution so that the University President has the power of a line item veto on legislation passed to him by the University Senate. See addendum for full discussion.

7. When appropriate, place time limits on reports to the Senate by invited guests or committees. Perhaps, several days prior to the meeting, the presenter could e-mail a synopsis of key points to the senators. This would enhance the efficiency of the meeting time and the quality of discussion.
8. Use electronic media to better publicize the deliberations and specific contributions of the Senate. Since the meetings are recorded, selected content could be made available on the web at www.villanova.edu/unit/itunes. The use of pod casts may provide an effective means to communicate specific messages to the constituencies of the university. Promote open Senate meetings to the constituencies through e-mail notification, pod casts, and electronic bulletin boards.

9. The Web Site is an excellent communication tool and contains links to Constitution, minutes of Senate meetings, and membership of the committees.
a. Ensure the web site is maintained (links to the March 2006 meetings with Fr. Dobbins, President, and the Board of Trustees are not operative)

b. Consider including minutes of each committee’s meetings on the site.

c. The site states: “The Executive Committee of the Villanova University Senate is an advisory group to the University President and the Board of Trustees on policy and major decision-making issues.” The Constitution does not identify the Executive Committee as and advisory group. If in fact the Senate is an advisory body, versus a legislative body, then a revision of the terminology in the Constitution is appropriate. If not, then the description on the site should be changed to more accurately reflect the Senate’s and the Executive Committee’s legislative responsibilities.

10. The lack of attendance at the Senate meetings is a concern. On average, based on the minutes, thirty-two percent of the Senators are not present for meetings. The Senate has an existing process in the Constitution for addressing chronic absenteeism and is encouraged to confirm the effectiveness of that standing process.

Conclusion:
We applaud the work of the University Senate and trust the information in this report enhances its effectiveness and efficiency.

Submitted, March 31, 2007

James M. Glasgow

Rules & Review Subcommittee Chair
Associate Director, Center for Responsible Leadership & Governance
Department of Management Faculty
Villanova School of Business

Members of the Subcommittee to Review the University Senate (2006-2007):
James Glasgow (Chair), Robert Dormish, Kristin Seeger, John Stofey

Members of the Rules and Review Committee (2006-2007): Robert Styer (Chair), Stephen Fugale, Robert Dormish , Anthony Giresi, James Glasgow, , Helen Heron Catherine Hill, Rose O’Driscoll, Kristin Seeger, Deepak Sharma, John Stofey, Jay Strieb, Selma Koury-Wunderlich.

Addendum:

Observations on Recommendation 2: the legislative role of the Senate.
The Senate’s web site states, “The Executive Committee of the Villanova University Senate is an advisory group to the University President and the Board of Trustees on policy and major decision-making issues.” In contrast, the constitution states that the Senate is a legislative body.
The discontent with the effectiveness of the Senate’s ability to legislate, as opposed to recommend may affect morale and participation of the members. It is vital that the role of the Senate be clear for members and the administration. At times the “legislation” presented to the president has been unilaterally modified (the equivalent to a line item veto) and not rejected/returned to the Senate, or forwarded to the Board of Trustees as specified in article X of the Constitution of the Senate. Articles I, II, III, and X are attached to this report; they address the roles and responsibilities of the Senate, President, and Board of Trustees.
Example: MINUTES SEVENTH Meeting of the Villanova University Senate for Academic Year 2005-2006 in Bartley Hall, Room 1010 on Friday, APRIL 21, 2006 at 3:30 P.M.
“Objecting to what was perceived to be a sudden announcement of an increase in parking fees for most university employees (Main Lot parking permits did not increase) the following motion was made, seconded and passed at the May 2005 Senate meeting:

The University Senate makes the following three recommendations regarding parking fees to Fr. Dobbin: (1) that the appropriate body be directed to convene a committee including representatives from the faculty, staff, students, public safety, administration and financial services to study the desirability/need for a parking fee at Villanova University; (2) that the convened committee provide a report of their conclusions to the University Senate at a Spring 2006 meeting; and (3) that there be no action taken on parking fees until the 2006-2007 academic year.”

Timeline:
a) May 6, 2005: original legislation passed by Senate
b) September 16, 2005: Senate receives response from the President giving a modified version of the legislation.
c) March 17, 2006: Senate Chair announces that the final subcommittee report will be presented at the April 21, 2006 Senate Meeting.
d) April 21, 2006: Senate Chair delivers final subcommittee report to University Senate.

A process more in keeping with the Senate constitution would have been:
a) Senate passes original legislation
THEN
b) President passes the legislation as written or forwards it to the Board of Trustees
OR
c) President sends the legislation back to the Senate for reconsideration, with an explanation that the budget for the 2005-6 fiscal year has already been approved and thus he is unable to pass the legislation as written
OR
d) President vetoes the legislation
AND
e) Senate reconsiders the legislation and passes an amended version, which is sent to the President, or drops the issue.

ARTICLE I
CREATION OF A VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY SENATE
Section 1
The Board of Trustees of Villanova University, for the better governance of the University, and to effect greater participation in the decision-making processes of the University for faculty members, students, administrators, staff, and alumni, herein approves, subject to the following provisions, the creation of a University legislative body for the University as a whole, provided, however, that Villanova University remain a private, Catholic, Augustinian-related University.
Section 2
The University legislative body shall be known as the Villanova University Senate.
ARTICLE II: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Section 1
Legislative powers concerning the governance of the University are delegated, as herein provided, by the Board of Trustees of Villanova University to the University Senate as herein created, subject to revocation of such authority by the Board of Trustees, and to such final approval or review of such legislation, amendments, rules and regulations issued pursuant to any delegated power as are reserved to the Board of Trustees or to the President by the Board of Trustees. In delegating these powers, the Board of Trustees retains unimpaired its independent power to legislate when and as it deems advisable. No reference to Senate authority to legislate shall mean that such legislation is required in order for the University to act through its Board or appropriate administrative officers within the scope of their authority.
Section 2
The Board of Trustees of Villanova University hereby delegates to the Villanova University Senate policy-making power in those enumerated areas of University affairs so designated in Article III of this document. Policy-making is defined as the power to legislate in university-wide matters subject to the rights and obligations of the President and the Board of Trustees as specified in Article IV and Article X.
ARTICLE III: POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
Section 1
The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in major academic matters significantly affecting more than one college of the University and significantly affecting more than one represented constituency of the Senate. These matters are noted in the areas of committee concern under the Academic Policy Committee (Article VIII, Section 2).
Section 2
The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in all major areas of faculty concern significantly affecting the University as a whole.
Section 3
The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in all major areas of student life significantly affecting the University as a whole.
Section 4
The Budget Committee of the University Senate (Article VIII, Section 4) shall participate in the formulation of the annual budget and the University Senate shall have authority for final review, and approval of the budget before submission to the President or Board of Trustees.
Section 5
The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in all major areas of University policy regarding mission and social justice affecting the University as a whole.
Section 6
The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in all major areas of University policy regarding athletics affecting the University as a whole.
ARTICLE X: PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF SENATE LEGISLATION BY THE PRESIDENT AND/OR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Section 1
When the University Senate passes legislation in areas where it has policy-making powers, this legislation shall be forwarded to the President within a fifteen (15) day period. During the thirty (30) day period following the transmittal of the legislation to him by the Executive Committee, the President has the following options:
a. The President, within the scope of his authority, may approve and sign the legislation; it would then go into effect in accordance with its terms.
b. The President may veto the legislation for stated reasons.
c. The President may, for stated reasons, return the legislation to the Senate immediately for reconsideration, with or without proposed modifications.
d. The President may inform the Executive Committee of the Senate that the legislation is being sent to the Board of Trustees for consideration.

Section 2
If the President does not choose to exercise any of the options in Article X, Section 1 within the thirty (30) day period following the transmittal of Senate legislation, then the Senate may forward the legislation directly to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees.
Section 3
The Executive Committee of the Senate may, if it believes an emergency exists, request of the President a more rapid consideration of Senate legislation.
Section 4
If option Ad@ in Article X, Section 1 is used by the President, or, if Section 2 is used by the Senate, and Senate legislation is sent to the Board of Trustees for consideration, then the Board of Trustees, in the three month period after submission of the legislation to the Board, has the following options:
a. The Board of Trustees may approve the legislation; it would then go into effect in accordance with its terms.
b. The Board of Trustees may veto the legislation for stated reasons. There is no appeal from a veto of the Board of Trustees.
c. The Board of Trustees may, for stated reasons, return legislation to the Senate for reconsideration, with or without proposed modifications.
Section 5
If the Board of Trustees does not choose to exercise any of the options contained in Article X, Section 4 within six months after official notice of submission of the legislation to the Board, then the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees shall, at the request of the Executive Committee of the Senate, meet with the Executive Committee of the Senate to discuss and dispose of the proposed legislation.
Section 6
In the case of a Presidential veto, or in the case of return of legislation by the President or the Board of Trustees, the Senate has (30) days, after reception by its Executive Committee of returned or Presidentially-vetoed legislation, to reconsider this legislation and return it for further consideration, if it wishes, to the President if he returned the legislation, or to the Board of Trustees, in the event the Board returned the legislation, or the President earlier vetoed it. The Executive Committee of the Senate, at its discretion, may postpone consideration of legislation during the summer months.

X. NEW BUSINESS

The Chair stated that our Parliamentarian, Dr. Michael Mulroney will not be returning in the fall. Dr. Mackey-Kallis thanked him for his fine service to the Senate and commented that the Senate could not have functioned as smoothly as it has without Dr. Mulroney. She noted that his service has been invaluable.

Senator Mackey Kallis thanked all of the Standing Committee Chairs for their fine leadership. She also thanked all of the Senators for a very productive year and is looking forward to seeing them again at our incoming meeting in May.

There being no further New Business, a motion To Adjourn was made by Senator Farrell and seconded by Senator Mulroney. Adjournment took place at 4:45 P.M. The Organizational Meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 4, 2007 at 2:00 P.M. in Bartley Hall, Room 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

John C. Stellakis

Executive Secretary
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY SENATE

JCS:hh