MINUTES: SEVENTH Meeting of the Villanova University Senate for Academic Year 2011-2012 in Bartley Hall, Room 2010 on Friday, APRIL 15, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

PRESENT:   Dr. Robert Styer, Chair; Dr. Joseph Dellapenna, Parliamentarian, Mr. Bryan Kerns, Executive Secretary

Ms. Diepiriye Anga; Mr. Andrew Benenati; Mr. Robert Capone; Mr. Damien A. Germino; Dr. M. Louise Fitzpatrick; Dr. Gary Gabriele; Dr. Christopher Haas; Ms. Bridget Halligan; Dr. Beth Hassel; Ms. Selma Koury Wunderlich, (representing the Alumni Association President);Dr. Sarvesh Kulkarni; Ms. Susan Leighton; Dr. Adele Lindenmeyr; Ms. Dorothy Malloy, Esq.; Mr. John J. Murray; Dr. Victoria McWilliams; Mr. Vincent Nicastro; Ms. Amy Patel; Mrs. Mary Quilter; Rev. John Stack, OSA; Mr. Kenneth Valosky; Dr. Thomas Way; Dr. Joyce Willens; Mr. Kevin Noller

Ms. Helen Heron, Recording Secretary

ABSENT: Dr. Chiji Akoma (Notified In Advance-Unable to Attend); Dr. Sohail Chaudhry (NIA); Mr. James Danko (NIA); Dr. John Doody (NIA); Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis (NIA); Mr. Phil O'Neill (NIA); Dr. Seth Whidden (NIA); Mr. Stephen Sheridan (NIA);Ms. Leighann Reilly; Mr. John Marrah; Mr. Michael Morris; Mr. Harshil Patel; Mr. Gregory Sleasman; Dr. Barbara Wall; Dr. Q. Chung (NIA); Rev. Kail Ellis, OSA (NIA); Dr. Maggie Wang; Ms. Lindsey Waters; Mr. Stephen Fugale  

AGENDA:
INVOCATION – Senator Andrew Benenati

Please silence all cell phones.  Please place your nameplate at your seat to assist us in identifying all speakers and in building our community.

I. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES of the MARCH 11, 2011 MEETING
II. POWER OF INTERPELLATION (if any)
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
IV. GUEST SPEAKER: Mr. Bob Morro, Associate Vice President for Facilities Management
V. UPDATE ON FOOTBALL DECISION: Mr. Vincent Nicastro, Director of Athletics
VI. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

VII. REPORT FROM FACULTY CONGRESS – Dr. Q. Chung, Chair
VIII. REPORT FROM UNIVERSITY STAFF COUNCIL – Mr. Kevin Noller, Chair

IX. REPORT FROM GRADUATE COUNCIL PRESIDENT – Mr. Damien A. Germino
X. FAREWELL ADDRESS OF THE STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT
Ms. Bridget Halligan
XI. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NAMES OF NEW STUDENT SENATORS
Thanks to departing student senators
XII. SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR FUTURE SENATE MEETING AGENDAS OR SPEAKERS
XIII. NEW BUSINESS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT

The Chair, Dr. Robert Styer called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. The Invocation was presented by Senator Amy Patel.

INVOCATION

Dear Lord, we are gathered here today to conduct matters of business with the members of the Villanova University Senate. Guide our hearts and our minds in the spirit of fairness, right thought and speech as we begin our discussions today. Impart your supreme wisdom upon our activities so that our affairs may reach a successful conclusion. This is our last senate meeting of the academic year, so thank you for being our constant source of guidance and wisdom this past year. Please bless all of us present here today and the rest of the Villanova community. Amen.
The Chair thanked Senator Patel and Senator Benenati for the prayer.

       The minutes of the March 11, 2011 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted.
II.    POWER OF INTERPELLATION

III.   ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE

Friday, SEPTEMBER 23, 2011        
Friday, FEBRUARY 3, 2012 (Budget)
Friday, OCTOBER 21, 2011             
Friday, MARCH 16, 2012
Friday, DECEMBER 2, 2011                       
Friday, APRIL 13, 2012

b)    The Organizational Meeting for the 2011-2012 Senate will follow immediately
upon the adjournment of this meeting.

c)    The newly elected Senate Executive Committee will tentatively hold its
Organizational Meeting on April 26, 2011 at 3:30 p.m., SAC, Room 104a

IV. GUEST SPEAKER

Mr. Robert Morro, Associate Vice President for Facilities Management

TRANSFORMING THE CAMPUS LANDSCAPE

After Mr. Morro presented a detailed power point presentation on the matter, he accepted questions from the members of the Senate.

Senator Way asked if there would be any changes for the roadway behind SAC and Mendel. Bob answered that there will be no changes. He noted that it is a one way road explaining that one would continue through the main gate and when you reach the decision point where the road branches off, you will see a digital sign.  It will indicate how many spaces are left in the upper and lower SAC lot. It will remain one-way and you will be able to exit onto Spring Mill Road from the Mendel gate. He also remarked that there will be a slight widening of the pathway behind John Barry Hall which will be a one-way road as well as a pedestrian access. He noted that they are trying to get the ability to drive all the way around campus to circumnavigate, but it would be too difficult because of the hills in front of the church and Dougherty Hall.  He stated that they are making the entire project “parking neutral” whereby they are creating additional parking between Tolentine and Simpson.

Senator Quilter wondered if people will be able to access SAC parking lot from Mendel or Fedigan gate. Bob stated that they will have to use the Ithan Avenue entrance.

Senator Halligan asked what will be the status of Dougherty Drive. Bob stated that there will be a traffic circle so that those who are being picked up or dropped off by cab will be able to come into the circle.  There will be a gate where they will need credentials to swipe for access.
Senator Amy Patel asked if the side, where Ithan Avenue is, will have two places to enter onto campus. Bob explained that the main gate will remain the same, but Dougherty Drive is not really an entrance to campus in that it is a dead end to Dougherty, it is the primary truck delivery site.  This is a major pick-up and drop-off for the trucks that are delivering food to Dougherty.  There are a few parking spaces there reserved for those with the appropriate hang tags. Because many people will double or triple park in this area, they are putting a gate to avoid that.

Senator Quilter suggested placing a directional sign at Dougherty Drive to help guide people onto campus.  Bob answered by saying there is very little space to place a large sign in that spot.
She also asked if it would be more feasible to stop those coming onto campus at Kennedy.  Bob agreed and said that they will be putting a little “dog-leg” in the Kennedy parking lot whereby people only need to make a u-turn. The circle behind the Connelly Center will be greatly expanded and will be large enough for the buses for pick-up and drop-off, as well as additional handicapped spaces on that circle. There will be eight or ten parking spaces there.  This side of Connelly will be heavily landscaped which will happen during the third phase. This will help to beautify the campus for those visiting the college.

Bob continued to say that the first phase, after graduation, will be the new traffic control points which will prevent people from driving in the pedestrian area and the work between Connelly and Vasey.

Senator Fitzpatrick asked if there would be a negative effect regarding ambulances and their response.  Bob said they are investigating an “easy pass” type system so that ambulances and shuttle buses will have a sticker on their windshield when they approach and it will open automatically.

Senator Haas asked what the thoughts are about snow removal and pedestrian safety and are there any long term plans for crossing Lancaster Avenue from the parking lots. Bob acknowledged that snow removal is a serious concern and that it is short intense periods of time. They are trying to design this with the thought of how they would do snow removal.  He pointed out that when the stairs and ramps were constructed between Connelly and Vasey they had heat melt systems.  He noted that over time this system has failed.  They will be putting in some snow melt on the handicapped ramps and some of the larger stairways.  They are testing brick and paper options at the Facilities Manager's office. Presently, they are driving tractor trailers and plows over them to test their durability. One must take into consideration how much money should be spent on snow melt for four or five events a year.

Bob feels that they have been rather successful regarding pedestrian safety on Lancaster Avenue.
They had considered an overpass or underpass but the transportation consultant advised against it. Unless we are connecting two discreet points that people are going to and from, for example the parking garage, the theatre or the stadium people do not tend to use it according to the consultant. Those that park in the lot come and go in several directions. They did, however, analyze other safety issues such as the drive between Tolentine and CEER where the view is blocked by cars parking at that corner. They will eliminate those parking spaces and relocate them. Similarly, they will be adding more sidewalks in various areas on campus. He added that with the upcoming events such as Graduation, Homecoming etc. that they have made all of the appropriate provisions necessary.

He stated that they have a very elaborate communication plan such as meeting with the University Staff Council, two Town Hall meetings with Father Peter. They have met with Residence Life whose dorms are impacted. There will also be a postcard sent to every faculty and staff member as well as emails and Campus Currents.

Bob encouraged reading Campus Currents to keep abreast of each development. He reminded the Senate that as of May 16th, there will be no more driving through campus.

Senator Styer thanked Mr. Morro for his presentation.

V.   UPDATE ON THE FOOTBALL DECISION

Vince Nicastro, Director of Athletics

Senator Nicastro explained that the Big East Conference is not in a position at this time to extend us a formal invitation in support of football so the Board of Trustees has not taken any action as of yet. They have agreed to exchange information with the Conference.  At this point, he stated that they will regroup and find out what the next step will be.

Senator McWilliams was under the impression that we were invited and that we told them what we would need to accept.  Vince stated that according to the Conference by-laws, a formal invitation requires a certain percentage of the membership to vote.  We had received an informal overture that we had been working in good faith on for many months.  He explained that it does require a vote of the membership in order to accept the formal invitation. The membership felt they were not in a position to take a formal vote.

Senator Anga asked if, when he referred to the membership, he meant some kind of committee or other schools in the Big East.  Vince replied that it would mean all of the sixteen schools in the
Big East.

Senator Styer asked if there were still discussions as to what the options were relative to where the games would be held.  Vince stated that they used outreach surveys done by a market research firm in trying to assess the demand in the market place not only from students, alumni and staff but also the general public.  The SimpsonScarbourough information is trying to gage reactions to football from various constituents as well.

Senator Soussou asked if the formal invitation had been placed last weekend did Villanova have an answer and if so could we know the answer?  Vince felt as though that would be a question for the Board of Trustees.

Senator Murray asked if Vince had a feeling when a decision might be finalized. He responded by saying that they would like to have it done by the end of the academic year.

Senator Dellapenna asked if the delay is connected in any way to the concerns that Father Peter had stated that certain conditions had to be met or Villanova would not join. Vince felt that that could be part of it.  He stated that we indicated what those issues were, but have not yet gotten a response.  He reiterated that the full membership could not come back with definitive answers.

VI. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

REPORT OF THE STUDENT LIFE/STUDENT GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

Reverend John Stack, O.S.A., Chairperson

The committee is composed of 16 members of the University community and met 6 times during the 2010-2011 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 Tom DeMarco from Residence Life gave a presentation to the Committee.

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

REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTE TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, Chairperson

APC's main focus this year has been the analysis of trends and variables in aggregate data that may correlate with student evaluations of faculty on the CATS. 

This project was a continuation of some preliminary discussion in APC during the last academic year, under the leadership of the previous chair, Julie Klein, in which, together with Dr. Carol Weiss, Director of VITAL, APC examined the CATS and classroom observation practices.

This project also evolved from ongoing questions regarding the potential impact of such instructor variables as gender and age; student variables such as GPA and final grade in a course, and course variables such as class size and class type on students' evaluation of courses.  This work, under the advisement of APC, has been conducted primarily through an APC subcommittee, chaired by Mike Pagano.  The subcommittee has been working with OPIR to develop the research design and research questions.  Members of OPIR, including Jim Trainor, Nurit Friedman and Paul Bonfanti, continue to analyze the data and provided a preliminary report at the April 11th APC meeting.  It is expected that this work will continue over the summer and into the next academic year.  Once the data analysis is complete it is expected that APC, working with the V...P.A.A.'s office, will determine the best way to disseminate results and will potentially recommend additional guidelines, based upon the findings, regarding how to use CATS data as just one part of an overall assessment of faculty teaching.

APC also carried over another project from the previous year: regarding the issue of end-of-semester assignments as a matter of overall academic policy.  In recent years, APC has examined the possibility of expanding the reading period for final exams, the prevalence of parties on the evening prior to the current reading day, and, in response to student concerns, the workload in last week of classes.  Last year, VPAA Jack Johannes banned certain assignments in the last week of classes. 
This year APC again examined the possibility of adding a second reading day to the end of each semester.  After extensive discussion and consultation with Student Life, members of the Academic Calendar Committee, the V.P.A.A.'s office and student leaders it was determined that given a myriad of constraints it was not possible to add a second reading day.  This led to further examination of the new policy regarding the last week of class/final exam policy.  It was felt by many members of APC that the current policy was somewhat unclear regarding what assignments were and were not permissible during the last week of class and that potential exemptions to the policy were not adequately addressed.  The committee also took up the policy with the realization that it provided a de facto second reading day by minimizing the likelihood of instructors assigning a major assignment due the last day of class and thus it was important to make sure that this policy was both clear and workable in order to preserve this defacto “reading” day.  To this end the committee developed a number of revisions to the policy, most significantly making clear the needed exceptions for graduate classes (The Graduate Dean of Arts and Sciences, Adele Lindenmeyr sits on APC) and an exemption for final oral presentations on the last day of class (crucial for classes that meet only once per week).  The policy was sent to the Committee on Faculty where it was approved but with some suggestions for further changes in the language, which are still part of on-going discussions in COF.

As part of our regular duties, APC also monitored and approved Calendar Committee drafts and subsequent final versions of the academic calendars for AY 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.

APC also hosted a presentation for faculty by Frank Henninger, Director, University Shop, on the new on line textbook ordering system, Verba, to be implemented next academic year.  This presentation was prompted, in part, by APC's examination of the enforcement and implications of the new federal law regarding deadlines for the ordering of textbooks for classes.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the members of the Committee for their collegiality and hard work.   The combination of faculty, administrators, and students is very productive and I was honored to work with such a great team of campus leaders. 

Members of APC:  Susan Mackey-Kallis (chair), Wayne Bremser, Bryan Kerns, Amy Patel, Harshil Patel, Fayette Veverka, Robert Styer, Adele Lindenmeyr, Christopher Haas, Mark Sullivan, Lindsay Waters, Mary Ann Cantrell, Louise Fitzpatrick (represented by Lesley Perry), Joyce S. Willens, Mike Pagano, Greg Sleasman, Nicholas Tumolo, Damien Germino, Paul Pasles, Chiji Akoma, Kail Ellis (represented by Craig Wheeland), James Danko (represented by Kevin D. Clark), John Doody (represented by Lowell Gustafson), Gary Gabriele (represented by Gerard Jones), Letizia Modena, Diepiriye Anga, Louise Russo, Farid Zamani, Ed Kresch, Sridhar Santhanam

REPORT OF THE MISSION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

Dr. Bernard G. Prusak, Chairperson

            The Mission and Social Justice Committee met seven times this year. Some of our business carried over from last year; we also researched and discussed several new issues, some of which will carry over to next year. Among other issues, we researched and discussed: the University's parking policies; whether all Villanova employees make a living wage; and Fair Trade goods and practices on campus. We also discussed, though more briefly, the feasibility of permitting adjunct faculty to buy into the University's health care plans; football; and, more recently and with an eye toward next year, the standing of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, the need for an update on the University's commitment to practice socially responsible investing in the management of the endowment, and finally whether the University's commitment to the principles of the Catholic tradition might best be served by hiring, for a fixed term, an ombudsperson who would have the time and wherewithal to investigate the kinds of questions that come to our Committee, but often reach beyond our ken.

The issue of the University's parking policies came to us last year (2009-2010) from the Faculty Congress, which was reacting to a decision by the Senate now two years ago (2008-2009) to reject a proposal from an ad-hoc committee that the policies be changed. The Mission and Social Justice Committee thought, in fall 2009 and again in fall 2010, that consideration of the University's parking policies was appropriate for us in view of Catholic teachings regarding both economic justice and environmental stewardship. Villanova affirms Catholic teachings enjoining economic justice for all. An implication of this affirmation is a special obligation to the economically disadvantaged. According to the U.S. Catholic Bishops' 1986 pastoral letter Economic Justice for All, “institutional patterns must [likewise] be examined and revised if we are to meet the demands of basic justice.” Villanova also affirms Catholic teachings on the obligation to be stewards of the earth. According to the U.S. Catholic Conference's 1991 pastoral statement Renewing the Earth, an implication of this affirmation is the willingness to seek and to make “changes in public policy, as well as in life-style... to arrest, reverse, and prevent environmental decay.”

Currently, the revenue generated by the parking fee structure far exceeds the direct costs to the University of maintaining the parking system, even including the costs of the Villanova Shuttle. We believe that the University should not be making money from its employees. Given the economic recession, however, our proposal to the Senate this fall was committed to keeping revenue at its current levels, which we acknowledged was justifiable—at that moment, during difficult economic times—since this revenue forms part of the general fund supporting a variety of educational purposes that might otherwise go unfunded. We therefore proposed that the Senate consider recommending a tiered parking fee system, with higher paid-employees paying proportionately more than lower-paid employees. Our hope was that the fee would be eliminated altogether for employees making less than $30,000 per year, and we also requested that incentives be instituted to reward carpooling and driving energy efficient vehicles and that some portion of profits from parking revenues be used to give added support to employees choosing to use public transportation.

As the Senate will recall, our proposal was remanded to us with the suggestion that we split the proposal in two: one concerned with economic justice, the other concerned with environmental stewardship. In the end, our Committee decided not to submit new proposals to the Senate, though two were drafted. The Committee nonetheless holds that the University's parking policies do raise questions relevant to our charge. We believe that the University should not be making money from its employees and that fees ought to be eliminated for employees making less than $30,000 per year. We also believe that the University would do well to consider the effects of its parking policies on the environment. We therefore ask that our concerns be taken into account in the re-evaluation of parking under the new campus plan.

The issue of Fair Trade goods and practices on campus took up much of our time and attention. In brief, we met with Jenn Maez (a student CRS ambassador active in the Fair Trade movement), Tim Dietzler (the director of Dining Services), two sales representatives from Peet's Coffee (the University's current coffee provider), and Will Stehl (an associate director of Campus Ministry responsible for working with the CRS ambassadors). As the Senate will recall, our Committee passed a motion asking the Senate to create a committee to explore the possibility of Villanova's applying for Fair Trade University status. It pleased us that the Senate agreed to take this step. The next step, of course, is the actual constitution of this committee, which the Senate decided to allow Father Peter to decide. Our Committee's hope is that Will Stehl will be a central figure in seeing this project to its end. From our point of view, questions that need answering include how the Fair Trade certifying body, which is a non-profit, funds its operations, and whether Villanova would have to pay for Fair Trade University status. We also think that further education of the University community would be helpful. By way of example, Peet's claims to obtain its coffee through fair trade practices, but most of its coffee is not fair-trade certified. The difference needs to be made clear and public.

Our interest in the football question was but passing. It is noteworthy, however, that the University began considering deepening its involvement in football at precisely the moment that studies appeared drawing more and more attention to the risks of catastrophic brain damage to players. In the end, we put aside the question of the feasibility of adjuncts' buying into the University's health plans: a survey of adjunct faculty indicated little interest once they learned of the costs. The Committee may or may not take up, next year, the standing of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, an issue highlighted in the University's Middle States self-study and noted more than once by the Middle States reviewers. The community of faculty is becoming increasingly fractured between tenured and tenure-track faculty in departments, on the one hand, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty who may be in departments or centers, on the other. These full-time, non-tenure-track faculty may be deeply invested in the University and distinguish themselves both as scholars and as teachers, but they are paid significantly less, do not enjoy the benefits of academic life like sabbaticals for research, and lack the standing not only to advance to leadership positions, but to vote for their department chairpersons and on new hires. The Faculty Congress, Academic Policy Committee, and Committee on Faculty have all discussed these matters over the last several years. Just this year, CoF considered, and in the end rejected, a proposal that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty with four continuous years of service be empowered to vote on the chair. CoF cited, as the grounds for its rejection, irregularities across departments and centers in the ways that full-time, non-tenure-track are both hired and evaluated: in short, practices vary considerably. Our own Committee noted, in our brief discussion of this issue, that these irregularities ought then to be quickly corrected. They should not serve as an excuse for considering the question of voting rights closed.

By way of conclusion, I wish to express my own appreciation for working at a university committed to living up to the principles of the Catholic tradition. These ask much of us. I also wish to express appreciation for my colleagues on the Committee, who gave much time in the interests of others. Bridget Halligan deserves special commendation. Not only did she take expert minutes of all our meetings; she was a source of both energy and ideas. Toward the beginning of the year, Bridget gave us an extensive presentation on the question of whether all Villanova employees earn a living wage. The answer, she found, is yes, for which the University ought to be proud. A question was raised, however, about the use of part-time employees, and in particular whether there is a trend toward greater use of part-timers in order to cut costs. The impetus for this question was not merely suspicion. Instead, I have found that Committee members care deeply about helping the University, with which we identify, embody the principles that it espouses. In any event, it proved beyond our ken to research the use of part-timers. Here, then, is an example of the kind of question that an ombudsperson would be better positioned to investigate. Whether the University community could benefit from such an ombudsperson is for next year's Committee to evaluate.

We have read the proxy voting records available online through the office of the Vice President for Administration and Finance. These records do not, however, explain the rationale for the votes, or identify the voting parties.

See the U.S. Catholic Bishops' 1986 pastoral letter Economic Justice for All, §16, available online at http://www.osjspm.org/economic_justice_for_all.aspx.
Ibid., §76. The bishops note, by way of example, that “a system of taxation based on assessment according to ability to pay is a prime necessity.”
See Renewing the Earth: An Invitation to Reflection and Action on Environment in Light of Catholic Social Teaching: A Pastoral Statement of the United States Catholic Conference, November 14, 1991, §§2-3, available online at http://usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/bishopsstatement.shtml.
Ibid., §5A.

Dr. Prusak added that there is a lot of reference in the report regarding parking.  He stated that the committee stands by their position that parking raises issues relevant to the condition of the university.  He feels that it addresses questions of economic justice and environmental stewardship. They believe that the university should not be making money from its employees.

Dr. Prusak mentioned the surplus of revenue over expenses as given in the ad hoc parking committee report.  Those figures are as follows:
As of 2008, TOTAL REVENUE was $975,000:

F/S registration fees, $206,000
Student registration fees, 510,000
Special events, $15,000
Citations/boots, $243,000

TOTAL EXPENSES, $441,000
Direct Labor/Operating, 198,000
Shuttle, $243,000
Off budget labor, $20,000

They understood that this money is used for other purposes that go into the general fund since these are very difficult economic times. It is not money that can be touched. However, once these difficult economic times come to pass, it would make sense that the university should not be making money on parking. The committee also feels that those employees making less than $30,000 should not pay.  He hopes that the Senate will take their beliefs into account in the new Campus Plan.

Senator Way asked how the figure of $30,000 was decided upon.  Dr. Prusak replied that many numbers were discussed and the decision was made that $30,000 would be suitable.

Senator Wunderlich commented that the general premise that she finds in this committee is that they are an advocacy group for all levels of people involved in the community.  They seem to be trying to do their best to follow the mission of the university.  She commended them for their effort.

Senator Lindenmeyr remarked that she had recently visited a college which had no parking explicitly reserved for any group.  She wondered if they had ever considered that issue.  Dr. Prusak said that the issue has never arisen. His concern was trying to insure that employees who do not have enough money should not be paying more. 

Dr. Prusak reminded us that the Senate previously passed a resolution that a committee be constituted to explore the possibilities of Villanova becoming Fair Trade.  He thinks there are some good questions that the Senate could still ask about Fair Trade. He feels it is quite fair to ask how the non-profit funds its operations. He asked the Senate to push that there be further education about Fair Trade on campus.  There are departments now that are using this practice such as Dining Services.

VII. REPORT FROM FACULTY CONGRESS – DR. Q Chung, Chairperson

As we reflect upon the academic year that's coming to an end, what the Faculty Congress experienced this year could be best characterized as the ‘heightened sense of community' – felt not only among the faculty, but more importantly, felt and expressed by the faculty as members of Villanova community. Community spirit was easily visible among the representatives serving on the Faculty Congress and its committees, echoing their interactions with their constituencies. Most delightful to report today is that we were able to identify a few of the enabling forces.

We enjoyed a year of free and active sharing of opinions, ideas, and experiences. We were lucky this year to have such an abundant supply of attention-gathering ‘issues' – such as football, dean search, benefits review, faculty salary study, Middle States visit, and the shaping up of the campus master plan, to name just a few – in addition to the perennial (but important) topics like budget and awards and policy reviews. While the rich supply of issues certainly fueled the faculty interest, what prompted the faculty to participate and engage must have been the grand optimism, the belief that participation and contribution are welcomed and will benefit the community? We also enjoyed a year of growing trust and respect between the faculty and the administration. The many formal and informal meetings that were held over the issues mentioned above must have fostered such an organic growth of mutual understanding as well as the courage to explore less visited areas. In addition, we are grateful that, this year Fr. Peter instituted a new venue called Faculty Friday. It has been wonderful to see faculty colleagues from all over the campus come together and create energy that transcends time, rank, and discipline. Countless words of appreciation from the faculty are owed to Fr. Peter for his vision to create it and generosity to sustain it.

As mentioned at the beginning of the academic year, the members of the Faculty Congress are modest, not very good at bragging about their accomplishments, which are many. Out of respect for their admirable character, I would also keep a low profile today – except that I should inform the University Senate that the members of the Faculty Congress are eager to channel the collective wisdom of the faculty to where it is due and expected.

VIII. REPORT FROM UNIVERSITY STAFF COUNCIL – Mr. Kevin Noller, Chairperson

 Over the course of the last year the University Staff Council (USC) underwent its first large overhaul of membership, as the two-year term for the inaugural USC board ended in December.  Seventy percent of the elected members are new to the USC.  With this new group will come fresh ideas and concerns and further engage more members of the Villanova community.

The newly elected Executive Board is as follows: CHAIR – Kevin Noller (Advancement), VICE-CHAIR – Stephen Sheridan (Office of the President), TREASURER – Gayle Doyle (Engineering), SECRETARY – Allison Venella (Athletics), PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEE - Christine Quisenberry (Office of the President). The new Committee Chairs are as follows: ELECTIONS – Kevin Noller (Advancement), COMMUNICATION – Gary Elder (UNIT), STAFF DVELOPMENT – Jen Weiss (VSB), STAFF RECOGNITION – Pat Haley (Facilities), SUGGESTIONS – Teri O'Brien (Student Life), COMMUNITY – Katie Morris (Administration and Finance).

This year the USC has had guest presentations from the Middle States Tri-Chairs, Bob Morro from Facilities, and Ellen LaCorte and Ray Duffy from Human Resources. All of the guests provided updates on their areas as well as changes that will impact Staff members at Villanova. After lively discussion at the benefits presentation, Human Resources followed up with answers to USC questions/concerns.

The USC continues to be active in the Villanova community by hosting the Community Picnic, Midnight Shift Recognition, and Christmas Social.  Similarly, the USC is a partner in the Bread and Soup Lunch and Treats for St. Agatha's Soup Kitchen.  The USC also handles the Distinguished Service, Above and Beyond, and Work Process Improvement Awards. Most importantly through monthly meetings and the suggestion system the USC accomplishes its Mission of being an open forum for staff representatives and other colleagues to discuss and address cross-University topics and concerns.

Senator Noller added that the Staff Council went through a transition so they now have new membership by 70%.  He feels as though this will be a good thing since they are the voice of the staff and with new people come new ideas.  He wanted to highlight their professional development committee working in the absence of someone in the Human Resources Department for professional development. This gives them the opportunity to offer more ideas for programs for the Fall and next Spring.  Their AD committees continue to provide events for the entire university. The Suggestion Committee is somewhere where anyone in the university can make suggestions. 

Senator Styer commented that the USC is young, but he is very pleased with the evolution of their development.

IX. REPORT FROM GRADUATE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
          
Mr. Damien A. Germino, Graduate Student Council President

WHO WE ARE
* We are an interdisciplinary organization of graduate students in the Liberal Arts and Sciences with a common interest to improve and enhance the quality of the graduate students' experience here at Villanova. Our goal is to create opportunities for students to participate in social, academic, and community activities.

* We regard representing our departments in the University as a continuing and progressive movement. We believe that the change, productivity, and community atmosphere we generate will be passed on by the next group of graduate members.

HOW WE HELP

WHAT WE DO

Academic Activities
* provide orientation for incoming graduate students
* bridge communication between the graduate student body of the various departments within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
* sponsor and organize seminars
* represent graduate students on the University Senate, Academic Policy Committee, and the Villanova Improvement Committee
Community Activities
* organize activities to raise money for charity organizations
* participate in local community service events
Social Activities
* get to know fellow graduate students through social gatherings outside traditional academic settings
* examples are: pub nights, holiday socials, and other social outings

X. FAREWELL ADDRESS OF THE STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT - Ms. Bridget Halligan

The 2010-2011 academic year was an exciting, productive, and transformative for the Student Government Association (SGA). This year, the accomplishments of the SGA fell into three categories; committee work, new initiatives, and restructuring.

Committee Work
The ten committees of SGA worked, and continue to work, tirelessly throughout the year on their own initiatives. This year our committees achieved substantial successes and continued important traditions. Our committees tackled everything from getting clocks installed in Tolentine classes to hosting a Student Leadership Dinner for 175 students; from working to create an off-campus housing website to hosting town hall meetings with offices like Dining Services and the University Shop; from getting a ping pong table installed in St. Mary's, to taking big steps to help facilitate good relations with our neighbors. The committees collaborated with other groups on campus to help facilitate new networks of students. At the beginning of the year, SGA worked with Campus Ministry and several faith groups to help host the annual World Religion's Day. SGA served as the fundraising branch, raising more than $3,000 for a philanthropy called Nothing But Nets. Recently, SGA helped facilitate conversation between the Japanese Club and the CRS Ambassadors and set up relief efforts after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. 
We just recently named our Dining Services Committee the “Committee of the Year” for their unending work with Tim Dietzler and his staff to make sure that Dining Services slogan, “the best serving the best,” stays true. 

New Initiatives
With new leadership every year, SGA is inherently a place for new student initiatives. The Vice President of SGA, Allison Webb, and I entered into the school year with a couple overarching goals that we developed based on input from the student body, recommendations from SGA, and sometimes most importantly, our own experiences. Our most important goals were to 1.) create a sense of community and collaboration among all groups on campus; 2.) help raise passion in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and 3.) develop a positive relationship with different groups on campus.  Of all the small projects this semester, Allison and I are most proud of the following two, and will absolutely stay connected with the University through these avenues. Working for permanent effect, we have housed these initiatives outside Student Government.

We created the Villanova Women's Leadership Association and hosted a “development dinner” of 80 students, faculty, staff, and administration to write a mission statement. The evening produced the following:

The mission of the Villanova Women's Leadership Association is to establish and maintain a collaborative network for all Villanova women to foster self-development and leadership, encouraging them to embrace risks and achieve their aspirations, while exemplifying their highest ideals.
We are in the process of assembling a student board and a parallel board of mentors, populated by faculty, staff, administration, and alumnae.
We are also proud of our work with the College of Arts and Sciences. We hosted the first ever “Majors Fair,” with over 75 student representatives and 30 faculty and staff representatives for 37 majors and more than 10 different resource offices. We attracted an estimated 450 undeclared

students. We worked to immediately implement a student board to run next year's events.

Restructuring
The importance of our first goal, to create a sense of community and collaborating among all groups on campus, paired with findings in the Middle States Self-Study, lead to our own internal study. We looked hard at the structure, organization, and function of SGA and attempted to identify the places where we were failing.  What we found was hard to accept, and difficult to actualize into a solution. We found that SGA was inefficient, meaning that our membership numbers did not match our participation numbers. The people who were working were doing all the work. Leaders were in constant struggle to find things for members to do.

We found that we were leaving too many students unrepresented because we were not systemically drawing from all corners of the campus. We wanted to be absolutely certain that the student government really was representative. We were going about "governing the students" wrong. I told the leaders that, “if you, as leaders, didn't take it upon yourself to be the kind of leaders, workers, and representatives that you are, this organization would fail. There is no system; there are no mechanisms that keep us going. If we stop caring, SGA comes to a halt. If we stop reaching out, the input stops coming in and the student body is no longer represented.” Our student leaders, the executive board, and I knew that it cannot be that way. We sought to create a structure that could keep itself afloat. Historically, the constitution was an informal document that was handed down. Rituals, and precedents, we decided, are fun, and should be a big part of a well-run organization, but the basis for SGA cannot be tradition. Thus, decided that we needed an official, codified, and accepted constitution. Mostly, we decided we needed more elected students in SGA. 

After many surveys, interviews, and brainstorming sessions, SGA has finally adopted a new constitution, designed to reorganize the student government to represent, include, and ensure collaboration among all groups on campus. The constitution was approved by both the SGA Executive Board and the University Senate Student Life Committee. Our work was officially commended by the Middle States Visiting Team in their oral report to the community.  There will be three elected groups in addition to the Student Body President and Vice President; Class Councils, University Senators, and Organizational Representatives. The diagram shows that these elected members constitute commissions and committees. An application process will enable students already not involved with SGA to participate in the committees, chaired by the elected members.

XI. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NAMES OF NEW STUDENT SENATORS

ARTS
Ms. Elizabeth Heurich
Ms. Minjeung Kim
TBA

VSB
Ms. Kathleen Carden
Mr. Andrew Benenati
Mr. Jack Chong

NURSING
Ms. Meghan Copel

SCIENCES
Ms. Ellie Garbade

ENGINEERING
TBA

 LAW SCHOOL
Meaghan McGrath

 GRADUATE
Emily Morse

PART-TIME STUDIES
Susan Leighton

Senator Styer, on behalf of the University Senate, thanked the departing senators.

VIII.    SUGGESTED TOPICS AND SPEAKERS FOR FUTURE SENATE MEETING AGENDAS

IX.     NEW BUSINESS

Senator Styer announced that following the adjournment of this meeting we will immediately
commence with the Organizational Meeting for the 2011-2012
academic year.

   X.     ADJOURNMENT

A motion To Adjourn was made by Senator Quilter and seconded by Senator Murray. Adjournment took place at 4:35 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted,

Bryan Kerns
Executive Secretary
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY SENATE

BK/hh