THE JOURNAL - Faculty Senate // University of Notre … assured the senate that the issue of annual...

Uni vers i ty of Notre DameThe Faculty Senate

THE JOURNALMay 12, 1980

At 7:30 p.m. the chairman, Prof. Kenneth E. Goodpaster, called the meeting toorder in Room 202 of the Center for Continuing Education and offered the prayer.He requested that all new and returning senators introduce themselves. TheJournal for April 9, 1980 was approved.

Goodpaster reported that two letters were received from the provost. The firstindicated that Assistant Provost Mary Katherine Tillman will chair the committeeinvestigati'ng teacher/course evaluation procedures and that the chairman of thesenate's Commi'ttee on Student Affai rs wi 11 serve on the commi ttee. The secondletter assured the senate that the issue of annual meetings with untenured faculty members to discuss their progress will be broached with departmentalchairmen.

Goodpaster announced that in recent faculty-wide elections, Profs. Nicholas F.Fiore and Thomas R. Swartz had been elected to the Academic and Faculty AffairsCommittee of th.e Board of Trustees, and Angie R. Chamblee and Prof. Gene M.Bernstein to the Campus Life Council.

Goodpaster summarized action taken at the Apr; 1 30 meeti'ng of the Academic Counci 1.A moti'on requi ring search commi ttee concurrence in the a'PPointment of deans waspassed. After a lengthy and candid discussion of the senatets appeal and grievance procedures proposal, the counci-l voted "to decline to accept" the senate'sproposal, and to table discussion on this topic until the next council meeting.

Goodpaster reported on the May 1 meeting of the Faculty Affairs Committee of theBoard of Trustees. Prof. Rufus W. Rau'ch presented the vari:ous proposals forimproving benefits for retired faculty, and Prof. Irwin Press discussed thefaculty's fringe benefits and the senate study of TIAA/CREF. Both reports weresympathetica11y recei'ved. Facu1 ty appeal and gri evance procedures and trusteeperceptions of the Notre Dame faculty were also covered.

Prof. Albert H. LeMay, senate treasurer, indicated that as of April 30, $1,413of the senate's $1,900 budget had been spent, but that this figure did not include CCE rental charges.

Speaking for the Commi.ttee on Administration, Prof. Michael J. Franci,s spoke ofcommittee activi tyi n three areas: departmental tenure requirements~ and annualprogress reports for untenured facul ty, the recrui·tment of women and minorttyfa'culty, and faculty involvement in establishing budget priori:ties for theUniversity. He encouraged next year's committee to continue to address theseissues. .

Speaking for the Committee on Faculty Affairs, Press described its work on thefaculty atti-tude survey, the appeal procedure proposal, the benefits for retired

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALMay 12, 1980'

faculty, and faculty fringe benefits. He stressed the important voice thatthe senate can have in University affairs, but that meaningful action is onlya product of hard work.

Goodpaster reviewed the activities of the Committee on Student Affairs and notedthe organization of the University Committee to review the administration,content and use of teacher/course evaluations.

Goodpaster delivered a "state of the senate" address:

My dear colleagues--boththose of you returning to the senate forthe coming year and those of you who have just joined us. It hasnot been customary in the past for the chai'rmanof the senate tooffer a formal or even a semi-formal "state of the senate address"-though I am not sure why. It seems to me to be a good idea, especi'allygiven the presence of new members at the May meeti"ng and the need tochoose new senate leadership at the same ti"me. But whether thispause for reflection catches on as a standard event, I will leaveto you.

r si"ncerely believe that this past year has been a good year for thefaculty senate.

After a survey of the members of the senate itself last June, theExecutive Committee proceeded to formulate what came to be calledthe Faculty Attitude Survey. This survey, the first of its kind atNotre Dame as far as I am aware, really provided the agenda for thesenate, not only for this year, but for several years' to come.Besides being well-received in terms of total faculty participation(nearly 60 per cent in one mail ing), the Facul ty Atti-tude Survey hasbeen appreciated by faculty and administrators alike as a reasonablemeasure of what the Notre Dame Magazine (in a speci-al arttcl e on i"t)called "the mind of the Notre Dame faculty." There can be no doubtthat individual questions on the survey were imperfect and that thedocument might have been improved and might yet be improved upon.But neither can there be any doubt that the issues raised by thesurvey are substantive--inthe areas of universi"ty governance,admtnistrative policy, faculty compensation, research, teachi"ng,library needs, retirement and the Catholic character of theU'ntverstty~I believe that the principal motivation underlying the Faculty Atti"tude Survey wi 11 remain cons tant, and that there'fore fo 11 Ow-·up effortstn this area are crucial. The principal motivati"on, of course, wassi"mply that the senate must demonstrate unequivocally and repeatedlytts attunement to the views and attitudes of the faculty at large--not relying on the senatels election procedures alone, Thi"s i~ thesingle sfrongest source of the senate's credi'bi,"li-ty i.n the policymaking dialrigues which are carried on in the Academic Counct1 and inother Unive'rsity contexts. r am not s.uggesti:ng that a survey as

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALMay 12, 1980

elaborate as the one last fall be conducted annually, though I dothink that every other year is not too frequent, and that on alternate years some sort of mini-survey might be used to keep lines ofcommunication open.

In any case, the issues which emerged with clear mandates were infact addressed by this body during the year. The standing committeesfunctioned effectively. From Student Affairs, we generated a set ofproposals regarding the teacher/course evaluation process and helpedto set up a University committee toi,mprove that process. Whoeveris elected tonight to the chairmanship of the Student Affairs standingcommittee will, I hope, participate vigorously next year on thisfront (as an ex officio member of the University committee). FromFaculty Affairs, in addition to very useful comparati've data onfaculty salaries and fringe benefits, we received intelligentlyworked-out proposals on retirement benefits and on an appeals procedure for faculty denied renewal, promotion or tenure. Both ofthese proposals are front and center in the attention of the administration and are not likely to go away. I personally believe theywill both succeed in the upcoming year. The Admi'nistrative AffairsCommittee has studied carefully data re1 ating to racial and sexdiscri'mtnation, has surveyed all departments on performance reviewsfor junior faculty, has compiled information on leaves of absence bycollege, and has made proposals tandem with Student Affairs regardinga pr'ocedure for evaluating administrators. '

Besides all these efforts, the senate has interacted with the AlumniBoard constructively, has secured participation in a consultingeffort to be undertake.n by the administration regarding salariesand fringe benefits, and (one can hope) has cre'ated precedent ininforma'l communications with the Provost. Finally, the AtadeJi1icManual changes regarding search procedures for administrative officershave beeni,mproved this year 1arge1y due to senate ini'ti'ative anddebate. "

All of these things, beyond the more obvious and standard functionsof the Facul ty S'enate... -functions 1ike provi di,ng a documented forumfor discussions with the President, the Provost and the Director ofLtbrartes; provi,ding a locus for facu1 ty-wide parttcipati'on tn univers-tty committees'; providing faculty representation to new facul ty,alumni, and trustees--a11 of these things speak well for the senatethts year.

There were of course items of business left undone, though no majori'ssues were completely ignored. We did not, for example, me.et asa group with the BU,dget' Priorities Committee or with the ExecutiveCommtttee of the University. On the whole, though, the committeestructure functioned effectively. I might add in this connectionthat the "interrupted format" tried at several meeti'ngs thts yearseems to have been a good thing--and it takes some rif the burden off

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALMay 12, 1980

of standing committee chairmen and members, especially during thefi"rst half of the senate year when meeting time is both necessaryand scarce.

Let us now look ahead, rather than back. I have already mentionedthe desirability of maintaining a regular survey link with the faculty at large, though differentiated in terms of extensiveness.If done in good faith and with sufficient care, this is the surestroad to full senate participation in governance at Notre Dame.On other, more specific,fronts--the senate must remain vigilantwith respect to proposals now under advisement by the administration(the proposal on the retired, the library five-year plan, the proposals on appeals procedures and faculty and administrator evaluation).In addition, very controversial questions have surfaced this yearregarding the Cathol ic character of the University and the questionof academic freedom as it relates to communications with trusteesand advisory counci 1s. A1so, compensation remains a serious problem.Salarie$ are low. Fringe benefits need increase and supplementation.The benefit for faculty children attending colleges or uni'versitiesother than Notre Dame should be at least' doubled. Uni'versi'ty contributions to TIAA-CREF should also be doubled. Besides raising ourposition from 17th out of 18 peers on this front, such a policy shift

'would undoubtedly pay dividends in the long run as an early retirement incentive, something that recent legislation makes imperati've.Finally, I believe that the faculty should be making constructiveproposals on the medical insurance benefit, both in its own rightand with respect to extended coverage of dental costs.

These are just some of the issues which, in addition to thoseaddressed this past year, should occupy the senate in the comingyear.

Let me conclude with some reflections on less specific, more "intangible"themes which are no less important. First, I believe that the senatein all of its acti,vities this year has presented a constructive andstatesmanlike posture to the various constituencies w;'th whtch tthas dealt. This should be conti'nued. It has not (alas) always beenthus. As we saw last fall, the faculty at large clearly wished fora "partnershtp" style by contrast to b~ll.igerence.

Second, the senate must contribute significant insight on the problems-be they perceived Qr real, if there is a differenc'e-,-,of facul ty trustand faculty participation in decision-making. The Faculty AttttudeSurvey clearly i,ndicates a problem here, and the candid dts-cusston atthe last meeting of the Academic Council gave eloquent voice to theconcern thathecause of centralized and secretive procedures, theadmi.nistration is failing to enhance the ki'nd of trust in its vtsionthat shared information' and authority make possible. Bel fef in the

THE FACULTY SENATEMay 12, 1980

integrity of specific persons is important, but insufficient.Belief in the integrity of the decision-making process itself isa1so necessa ry .

Finally, a theme which came up at our last meeting needs to be remembered. As Notre Dame proceeds to mobil i ze its s·i gnifi cant endowmentresources into the 80 ls and 90 1s, the faculty must have a leadershipvoice in setting long-term priorities. The senate can and shouldbe the most authentic voi ce of the facul ty on this front. And itmust help the university community at large to avoid a certainparadox. In the history of moral philosophy there is a useful analogyto the paradox of which I speak. One commentator expresses it thisway: IINon-hedonists often point out that if we consciously takepleasure as our end, we somehow miss it, while if we pursue and attainother things for their own sakes, not calculating the pleasure theywill bring, we somehow gain pleasure. This is known as 'the hedonisticparadox'.11 The point I wish to make is not that Notre Dame has aproblem about pleasure or hedonism. The analogy springs from NotreDamels concern for a different commodity, namely something that oftengets called II greatness" or excellence. II It seems to me ·that thereis, 1i ke the hedonisti c paradox, a II greatness paradoxll--and l't means,in the terms of the commentator just quoted, that if we too assi duouslytake 'greatness' as our end, we somehow miss it--while if we pursueand attain other things for their own sakes, not calculating the greatness they will bring, we somehow gain greatness. I would like tothink that the senate can contribute not only proposals, information,criticism and advice to the administration (and to the rest of theuniversity community)--but also the kind of vision which guards againstlosing out to such paradox. At any rate, I wish you all the best.

The meeting was recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m.

Goodpaster described the procedures for the el ection of senate. off; cers for1980-81. He noted that Prof. Paul F. Conway would serve on the Executive Committee as immediate past vice-chairman. He presented a slate of candidates nominatedby the Executive Committee, and strongly encouraged the nomination of othersWhQ had consented to run.

The nominees for chairman were Profs. Robert A. Vacca and Joseph A. Tihen. Bothspoke briefly about their qualifications and philosophies of senat~ governance.Vacca was elected.

For vice chairman, the nominee was Prof. Michael J. Francis. He was elected byacclamation.

For secretary, the nomi.nee was W. Phillip Helman. He was elected by acclamation.

For treasurer, the nominee was James G. Neal. He was elected by acclamation.

THE FACULTY SENATEMay 12, 1980'

For chairman of the Committee on Administration, the nominees were William M.Burke and Prof. Vaughn McKim. Prof. Kenneth Jameson nominated Tihen. Tihenwas elected.

For chairman of the Committee on Faculty Affairs, the nominees were McKim andProf. Vincent P. DeSantis. McKim was elected.

For chairman of the Committee on Student Affairs, the nominee was Burke. Hewas elected by acclamation.

Under new business, Vacca moved that the senate vote an expression of thanks tothi"s year's senate officers and to Goodpaster in particular, who had IIwon therespect of colleagues unsurpassed in recent memory.1I Rauch seconded, and themotion passed unanimously.

DeSantis moved that the senate go on record deploring the late date the Universityadministration informs the faculty of its decisions on promoti:on, tenure andsalary, and that the senate ask the University administration why it conti:nuesto use such a late date to disseminate this information. Prof'l Hilliam E..Slowey seconded. After a brief discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

Th.e meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

Those absent but not excused: Paul Anderer, modern and classtcal languages;Mari'o Borelli, mathematics; D'ino S.Cervigrl'it'modern and classical languages;Charles F. Crutchfield, law; Steven vI. Hurtt, architecture; John J. Kennedy,marketing; Harry Lafuse, electrical engineering; Rev. James J'I NcGrath, biology;Ch.arles Parne-ll, modern and classical languages; James P. Sterba, philosophy ..

Respectfully submitted,

James Go. NealSecretary

University of Notre DameThe Faculty Senate

THE JOURNALSeptember 9, 1980

At 7:50 p.m. the chairman, Prof. Robert Vacca, called the meeting to order inRoom 202 of the Center for Continuing Education and offered the prayer. Thesenators introduced themselves. The Journal for May 12, 1980 was approved.

James Neal, senate treasurer, reported that the senate overspent its $1900 budgetlast year by $800. This year's budget has been increased to $2000, and severalof last year's expenses, such as computer time to analyze the faculty attitudesurvey, should be less this year.

Vacca reported that seven matters acted upon by the senate last year are stillpending acti'on by others. First was the senate resolution of March 10 recommendingto the administration a guaranteed minimum income for faculty retirees, Blue CrossBlue Shi'eld medical insurance supplementary to Medicare and basic group lifeinsurance. The provost recently indicated that he expected all three to be approved, but some details had yet to be settled.

Second, the senate recommended to the provost in March that a committee be formedto examine the teacher/course evaluation procedures and recommend improvements.This committee has been named and is chaired by Assistant Provost Mary Tillman.This committee will be meeting soon.

Third, the April resolution of the senate suggesting that the provost appoint acommittee to review procedures for evaluating administrators, including departmentchairmen, has been accepted by the provost who will appoint such a committee.However, the suggestion that this committee work in tandem with that on teacher/course evaluatinn may not be followed.

Fourth, the differing procedures by which junior faculty in different departmentsare informed as to their performance and progress is being discussed by theprovost, deans and at departmental meetings.

Fifth, the senate's proposal on promotion and tenure appeal procedures remil.instabled by the Academic Council until the next council meeting. Vacca made clear,however, that this remains an active topic with considerable support. The provost has indicated that some statistics regarding last year's promotion and tenureactions may be expected.

Sixth, the provost has indicated that he will try to advance some deadlines which1ed to the 1ate date for 1as t year's announcements of promotion, tenure and sal ary.Little advancement should be expected, however, in the dates for promotion andtenure announcements. The timing of these decisions probably w·ill not changemuch as this mtght reduce the time available for reflection on the fairness andcorrectness of these vital decisions.

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALSeptember 9, 1980Page 2

Seventh, faculty compensation, particularly the matters of Notre Dame's standing17th of 18 II peer" universities for contributions to TIAA-CREF is an active topic.

Vacca reported the summer activities of the executive committee of the FacultySenate which included three meetings. Two meetings concerned the senate agendafor the coming year. The third meeting was with Fr. Ernan McMullin, who is amember of the Budget Priorities Committee (BPC). Several topics were discussedthat are of common interest to the senate and BPC. Ways in which the two bodiesmight interact include inviting one or several members of BPC to a senate meeting,preparation of a joint white paper and the senate seeking information from theBPC.

Vacca also reported two letters from members of the faculty during the summer.One asking the senate to look into a grade change by a dean and 'the other concerning the non-filling of a vacated position to help students find alternate employmente

The meeting was recessed at 8:40 p.m. to allow the standing committees of thesenate to hold meetings. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 ~.m.

Professor emeritus Wi 11 tam Burke reported for the Student Affa irs Commi ttee.Two items had been discussed as major topics for action this year, first workingwith the commi'ttee investigating teacher/course evaluation, on which the chairmanof the senate's Student Affairs Committee will serve. Second, the university'sadmission procedures will be discussed to see if there maYi·be.a,~place for facul tyinput as there is at some other private universities. A topic that is expectedto be discussed at future committee meetings is the wording of article 26 of theAcademic Code which sets procedures involving academic honesty.

Prof. Joseph Tihen reported for the Committee on Administration. Two topicsthat will be pursued are the status of minorities and women at Notre Dame, especi,ally reasons for lI early ll departure, and improved review of junior facultyprior to tenure decisions. -A topic which may be discussed is the wording of theAcademic Code on grading, defi ci ency report; ng and changing of grades.

Prof. Vaughn McKtm reported for the Faculty Affa; rs Committee. Thr,ee topi csw"i'llbe discussed this year, first the annual survey of faculty compensation, bothdirect salary and fringe benefits, in comparison with peer universities will becontinued. Second, the nature and balance of fringe benefits will be considered.Thi"rd, the financial status of the library and its impact on teaching and researchprograms at Notre Dame will be examined. '

Vacca rai.sed the question of surveying facul ty attitudes this ye,ar.. Poi,nting tothe success of last year's large survey he suggested that a short survey thisyear should be sufficient. Such a survey should help the senate, and others,to know the feel ings of the facul ty and it shoul d inform the facul ty of senateactions. These functions may also be served by a newsletter from the Chairmanof the Faculty Senate outlining past and anticipated senate acti'ons and solicitingcomments and advice. The res'ul ti ng di scuss ion 1ed to the proposal that thesenate prepare a questionnaire no later than the November meeting.

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALSeptember 9, 1980Page 3

Under new business Prof. Paul Conway proposed that the Faculty Senate shouldaffirm the principle that once a grade is given it may only be changed by thecourse instructor so long as that professor is capable of making such a decision.The Academic Code and the Academic Guide can be interpreted differently on thispoint. The discussion covered several points, to what extent should an individualcase influence the considerations, the effect of a specific case as a precedentfor future action, and the rights of students to appeal if they feel a grade isunfair. The proposal was referred to the Committee on Administration.

Prof. Mi chael Franci s asked the senate to support a lone facul ty member whoseeks a thorough check for asbestos in the library. Vacca indicated that thematter would be pursued.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.

Those absent but not excused: Charles F. Crutchfield, law; Philip Devenish,theology; Robert G. Hayes, chemistry; John J. Kennedy, marketi.ng; Barbara McGowan,American Studies; Charles Parnell, languages; Hilliam E. Slowey, accountancy;John Van Engen, history. .


w~ Phillip HelmanSecretary


THE JOURNALOctober 13, 1980

At 7:30 p.m. the chairman, Prof. Robert Vacca, called the meeting to order inRoom 202 of the Center for Continuing Education, asked that all remember Fr.Toohey and his service to Notre Dame, then led the senate in the Our Father.Vacca then introduced Fr. Theodore Hesburgh for his fourth annual discussionwith the Faculty Senate.

Prof. Michael Francis noting that the priorities and development of the University must often be constrained by funding, asked about fund raising. Fr. Hesburghreplied that the priorities expressed in the Campaign for Notre Dame were beingrather well matched by the donations and pledges. The top priority, endowedchairs for professors, should provide about 40 chairs, about half of which remain to be filled. This should simultaneously enhance the excellence of thefaculty and by removing their support from the operating budget allow thosefunds to be applied to other priorities. The building situation is good with avery small debt at low interest rates, needed new buildings are progressing welland older halls have been recently improved.

Other endowment funds, such as those for the library and Law School, are smallerbut growing, and are very important to the quality of the university. Thescholarshtp fund was cited as affecting about 70% of students and being veryimportant in attracting the type of student desired at Notre Dame. The incomefrom endowment funds is very important in freeing operating funds, largely fromtuitton, from these support roles.

Francis asked what role the faculty might play in any changes in priorities.Hesburgh replied that his letter to the provost would be published, and that itcharges the provost with gathering wide input without tying him to any formula.

Prof. Ellen Weaver suggested that one reason many Ivy League schools have excellent faculties is that a policy of regular sabbatical leaves allows time for reflection and creativity, but Notre Dame has no such policy. Hesburgh pointed outthat the Notre Dame policy is to allow each department to grant leaves to thosewho can be expected to make the best use of the leave rather than at fixed timeintervals. Many such leaves are applied for and granted each year.

Prof. Joseph Tihen pointed out that in the' past eight years faculty salary raiseshave translated into a 1-1/2 to 2% per year erosion in purchasing power and inquired if there was any planned point at which this would stop. Hesburgh statedthat each year salartes were given top priority in budget planning, once fixedcosts were allowed for. Inflation is difficult to plan for quantitatively, andthe budget must be balanced. Endowed chairs help, and increases in tuition makemore money available to put into salaries, but increases in Blue Cross/BlueShield and Social Security also come out of that money.

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALOctober 13, 1980Page 2

Prof. Vaughn McKim commented that recent figures show Notre Dame falling in itsalready low ranking with peer schools for TIAA-CREF contributions and not progressing in AAUP surveys of total compensation especially at the AssistantProfessor rank. Hesburgh agreed that we would like to be ranked higher butobserved that few schools bettered the 9-10% raises of the current year. WithNotre Dame now ranking 18th in total endowment, funds for compensation shouldrise in the next few years.

McKim indicated that a recent Notre Dame Report said that we have the lowest tuition and next lowest room and board of comparable universities. Hesburgh suggestedthat the $500 increase in tuition and $250 board and room increase was about aslarge as it should be. Already 70% of students receive aid, and a large increasein tuition would likely change the makeup of the student body by replacing manyfrom lower and middle income families.

Weaver asked if the University had thought of a subsidy for publ ication of scholarly works. Hesburgh replied that in effect there is a subsidy for the NotreDame Press, and that individual works could get'a subsidy for publication if itis warranted.

Prof. Charles Parnell asked if the changes in the theological institute in Jerusalem might include the undergraduate overseas study program. Hesburgh thoughtthat it would not as the priorities there are on the level of faculty, advancedscholarship and ecumenical projects. However one might consider a one semesterundergraduate program there in conjunction with an archeological summer dig.

Prof. James Sterba asked if there were any new ideas for affirmative action forminorities. Hesburgh replied that for hiring the largest problems are the smallpool and large demand for qualified Blacks and Hispanics. Notre Dame's bestopportuni'ty in the field is to enlarge the pool by providing a quality educationfor minorities, but one problem with this approach is the fact that many ghettoschools have an atmosphere wh;,ch turns potential students away from education.The pool of women, however, is larger and growing, and progress is being madeand wi~l continue.

Prof. Charles Crutchfield suggested that minorities are not much attracted tomany schools as there is not much chance of promotion due to the lack of room fornew tenured faculty.· This affects all races at all schools. Hesburgh agreed thatif few retire from tenured posts there can be few slots for young scholars. Atthe same time we must attract top students by offering a high quality educationand guard against a slide from quality. We need the freshness of young scholars.

Mr. James Neal asked if there were plans to encourage early retirement. Hesburghindicated that this is being looked into and probably ways will be worked out.One possi"bilfty is gradual retirement, a reduction in load and duties.

Vacca asked if the cost of the "carrot ll approach might force the use of a II stick ll

such as withholding of cost of living raises or facilities. Hesburgh said thatwould not be humane and should not be done. What we want is a humane way. Whatis needed is an imaginative approach, and there will be many ways to achieve thisend.


Prof. Michael CrO\AJe suggested that we must help our own faculty to become distinguished; this will become more important with the coming 5-year extension ofthe mandatory retirement age. One way is to increase the availability of leavesof absence, and bring them closer to one year in seven overall. Another way isto better match the Library to our needs: the forthcoming Byzantine collectionis fine, but we have no Byzantine scholar. It may be wiser to help keep ourcurrent faculty fresh. Hesburgh said there are plans to seek a Byzantine scholarwhen that collection arrives.

Prof. Mario Borelli expressed concern over expanding the liberal content of education in the sciences where there is also pressure to cover wide and expandingtechnical areas. Hesburgh indicated that some areas may have to be covered faster to make room for liberal studies. Specialization is important, but educationis important in its totality; it is not just training. In business studies theliberal content should perhaps be 60%.

Prof. Alexander Hahn asked about those who do the hiring: are not their wantsimportant too? Hesburgh suggested that much material can be covered in less time.Many top executives have had few business courses. A vice president of engineering may be a good engineer who can also write and speak well. Premeds should betrained to understand people lest they become M.D.s who are not very humane.

Prof. William Burke praised Fr. Hesburgh1s efforts to make Notre Dame a greatuniversity and asked how the Faculty Senate could best promote that cause overthe next ten or so years. Hesburgh invited the help of any group with ideas.He suggested that beyond budget problems, there was need for each decision ateach level to be made with quality in mind. Our move forward must be based onquality, high expectations and high standards; we must reach as high as we canand keep working at it.

Prof. Vincent DeSantis shared the concern in the decline of the humanities in thecurriculum and, suggesting there may have been a lack of vigilance by the faculty,said we must do the changing. Hesburgh agreed that it is primarily a facultyproblem, but we must all work on it, and hoped we would get concerned enough todo something.


Those absent but not excused: Gail Bulmer, AFROTC; Kenneth Jameson, economics;John Kennedy, marketing; Eugene Marshalek, physics; Barbara McGowan, Americanstudies; James McGrath, C.S.C., biology; Thomas Merluzzi, psychology; WilliamTageson, psychology; Lee Tavis, finance.


·tt::~t~/l~~Secretary

In iH:cordance with st,ilndin<J SenJtc polic'y~ t.hir.; Journal has been edited in mutualtlyreement wi th our 9UCS t speaker,


THE JOURNALOctober 15, 1980

At 7:30 p.m. the chairman, Prof. Robert Vacca, called the meeting to order inroom 202 of the Center for Continuing Education and led the Senate in the OurFather. Vacca introduced Prof. Norman Crowe, a new member, and announced thatProfs. Joan Aldous, Walter Gajda and Eric Smithburn would also be joining thesenate. The Journal for September 9, 1980 was approved.

Vacca reported that the Academic Council had met on September 29, 1980 and actedon two items for which the senate had proposed action. Changes were approved inthe Search Commi'ttee for the Director of University Libraries. The changeslargely followed the senate proposal. The main difference is that there will bethree members from the Library Faculty rather than two from the Library Facultyplus one from the library Staff, in addition to two members of the Teachingand-Research-Faculty and the Provost as chairman of the committee. Discussionof the Council action on the appeals procedure was postponed to old business,but copies of the procedures adopted were distributed.

Vacca indicated that the Budget Priorities Committee and administration officials have agreed upon final wording of a statement on benefits for the retired,copies of which were distributed.

The Academic and Faculty Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees is to meetOctober 16 and is expected to deal with several issues of interest tD the senate.One such issue is the di vi s i on of money between sal ary and fri' nge benefi ts, i ncl uding tui,tion grants for chi 1dren of facul ty members. Early reti rement wi 11also be di"scussed, with the Budget Priorities Committee expected to estimatecosts of several opti'ons. The status of the Library will also be discussed.

The meeting was recessed at 8:05 p.m. to allow the standing committees to holdmeettngs. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 p.m.

Prof. Vaughn McKi'm reported that the Committee on Faculty Affairs was preparinga draft versi~n of a short faculty survey which should be ready to submit to thesenate at the November meeti'ng. The committee was also collecting data for theannual comparison of faculty compensation at Notre Dame with peer and Big 10schoo1s. '

Prof. Joseph Tihen reported that the Committee on the Administration of theUniversi'ty was considering the status of women and minorities but had not yetbegun to focus on any specific issues. The Committee is also preparing a statement on the policy of changing grades which should be presented at the Novembermeeting. In reply to a question by Prof. Vincent DeSantis, Tihen indicated thatthe statement would be at an abstract level, and that specific cases would notbe examined. A discussion followed on the desirability of examining specificexamples in making a strong statement.


Prof. William Burke reported that the Committee on Student Affairs would hold ameeting with Director of Admissions John Goldrick which would be reported at theNovember meeting. Burke also reported that the Teacher/Course Evaluation Committee had met and discussed several issues but had not gotten down to nittygritty details, thus there is no prospect of a new form this year.

Vacca then called for new business. Mr. James Neal pointed out that tuition aidis granted to the children of all faculty if they attend Notre Dame or St. Hary's,but if the children attend other colleges the aid is restricted to Teaching-andResearch faculty with tenure. Neal then introduced the following motion:

The Faculty Senate recommends to the University admi'nistrationthe extension of the Faculty Children's Tuition Grant benefitto all full-time members of the Library, Special Professionaland Special Research Faculties with six or more years of conti'nuous full-time service on the facul ty at Notre Dame.

The motion was seconded by Dr. Phillip Helman. The possible interaction of thisproposal with that proposal already before the Board of Trustees to raise themaximum grant from $1000 to $2000, for which the senate has already undertakenthe task of estimating future numbers of el'igible chilren, was discussed, aswere ques tions of equi ty and the 1i ke ly number of grants. The moti on wasapproved by a vote 20 to 7.

Consideration of old business began with a comparison of the retirement policyto be presented to the Board of Trustees and the recommendation of the senateto the administration. The recommended $10,000 per couple and $8,000 singleminimum income and Blue Cross/Blue Shield Medicare supplement are the same.The senate's recommendation that the minimum income figure be based only onSocia1 Securi'ty and TIAA-CREF but not income from savings was changed to inc1udeall income. The senate proposal that retirees be included in the basic'grouplife insurance for all employees was dropped from the recommendation presentedby the admi'ni strati on to the Board. There was a1so no mention of wi dows nor offuture cos.t of living reviews of the policy. The discussion largely expresseddi'ssatisfaction with the reductions in what had been thought to be very modestrequests given the small number of retirees affected. Several senators suggestedthat si.mple humanity required that the University offer more to those who hadgiven long servi.ce to the University for the low salaries of past years. Vaccapointed out that the senate had had no involvement since sending the proposalto the administration in March.

DeSantis moved that:

The senate instruct the chairman to convey to the Board ofTrustees that this policy on retired faculty is unacceptableto the senate.

The motion was seconded by James Deffenbaugh and passed unanimously.

TItE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALOctober 15, 1980Page 3

Vacca then began discussion of the appeals procedure adopted by the AcadewicCouncil by listing three differences from the senate's proposal. First, thesenate had proposed that the reviewers be independent of the original decisionprocess and elected by the faculty at large, but the procedure adopted callsfor mutual consent in the selection by the Provost and the appellant. Second,the senate wanted several reviewers to allow for discussion and effective review.Third, the procedure is not permanent, rather it is for a one-year trial period\'Jl thout explicit provision for who is to <'valuate t.he triol.

Prof. Hichael Francis moved that:

The Facul ty Senate deeply re~Jl'cts the degree to wldeh itsproposal regarding promotion or tenure appeals was changed.It urges that the operation of this new procedure be closelystudied by a joint faculty/administration committee includingmembers of the Faculty Senate. The senate plans to measurefaculty opinion as to the effectiveness of this system aftera reasonable period of experience.

The motion was seconded by DeSantis. In the discussion concern was expressedover the need for access to all related files and interviews with all participants in the original decision on the part of the reviewer. Concern was expressedthat excessive demands might be placed on the time of the reviewer. However,Illany fe 1t that the adopted appea1s procedure represented a step forwa rd. Themotion was passed unanimously.


Those absent but not excused: Charles Crutchfield, law; Harald Esch, biology;Eugene R. Marshalek, physics; Barbara McGowan, American studies; James J. tkGrath,C.S.C., biology; Thomas V. Merluzzi, psychology; Lee A. Tavis, finance and business economics.

Respectfully subnrltted,

V'lf~/~~w. Phillip HelmanSecretary


THE JOURNALNovember 10, 1980

At 7:34 p.m. the chairman, Prof. Robert Vacca, called the meeting to orderin room 202 of the Center for Continuing Education. James Deffenbaugh offeredthe prayer. The Journals for October 13 and October 15, 1980 were approved.

Vacca reported that the self-imposed Senate deadline for preparing a facultyattitude survey had arrived. The Faculty Affairs Committee had prepared aquestionnaire on fringe benefits, which seemed to satisfy recognized needsfor a survey.

Vacca also reported on the meeting with the Academic and Faculty AffairsCommittee of the Board of Trustees on the day following the previous senatemeeting. The promotion and tenure appeals procedure presented by the AcademicCouncil was favorably received. No details on the review of the procedurewere set, but some report on its workings may be expected by the next fallmeeting of the Board. The administration proposal on emeriti benefits differsfrom the senate proposal, but in discussion some favorable clarificationsemerged on periodic review and notification of retirees and widows.

Insufficient funding of library a\:quisitions was discussed, but the probability remains that the budget will do no more than cover increased costs due toinflation. Early retirement was little discussed as the Budget PrioritiesCommittee was just starting its study.

In discussion of the Academic and Faculty Affairs Committee meeting,. Prof.Paul Conway emphasized the point that the cost of Medicare Supplement insurancewould still be paid by the retirees, although the minimum income base had beenadjusted upward to include this cost. The senate had earlier recommended thatthe University absorb this cost for all retirees.

Vacca further reported that before sending to the administration the senaterequest for extending the Faculty Childrens Tuition Grant, supporting quantitative data would be obtained by polling the affected faculty.

Vacca also reported receipt of a letter from Prof. Serge Lang of Yale, recommending protest of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-2l. CircularA-21 requi'res universities with federal research contracts to account for alltime spent by the faculty, teaching as well as research, as part of the overhead charge justification. The circular has other requirements, but it wasfelt that time accounting might be an excessive and ineffective intrusion.An.ad hoc committee was formed to examine this question, chaired by Prof.Alexander Hahn, and including Profs. Mario Borelli, Philip Devenish and AbrahamGoetz, The committee will report its recommendations to the senate.

The meeting was recessed at 8;15 p~m. to allow the standing cornmtttee~' tohold meetings. The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p,m~

Vacca noted that the December meeting VIas scheduled for th~ s.ame ntgftt as abasketball game and may be rescheduled.

THE FACULTY SENATENovember 10, 1980Page 2

J Prof. William Burke reported that the Committee on Student Affairs had metwith John Goldrick, Director of Admissions. The meeting had been quite informative as to statistics, policies and plans for increasing contact withprospective applicants. Burke also reported on the progress of the Teacher/Course Evaluation Committee, which has formed two groups to separately considernew questions for the form and general policy and application of the evaluatipns.

Prof. Joseph Tihen reported that the Committee on Administration had met withseveral minority and women members of the faculty to identify issues,whichthe senate should pursue. Of the ideas developed, the most appropriate forsenate consideration was the need for a full-time University affirmative actionofficer. The officer would work with the departments to locate qualifiedminority candidates for faculty openings. This is not a new proposal, sonegative arguments raised in the past must be examined. Also mentioned wasthe special implication for good minority and female faculty of the latenotice of appointment and tenure decisions.

Prof. Vaughn McKim reported that the Committee on Faculty Affairs had threematters under study, the library, the Tuition Grant Questionnaire, and thefaculty compensation survey. The questionnaire was being examined by theSocial Sciences Training Lab for compatibility with computer analysis. Thedocument will be sent to members of the senate for examination and commentprior to mailing to members of the Teaching and Research Faculty.

Vqcca then opened discussion of new business with the question of three discrepancies noted between the Academic Code and Academic Guide sections of theFaculty Handbook. There being: 1) Is a (written) statement of grading policy-independent of attendance policy--required? 2) Are II pink slips" mandatory?3) Who can change grades? An active discussion followed on the desirabilityof discussing one or more particular cases, questioning why the Academic Guideshould exist, some details of a specific case and what principles should a~ply.

Prof. Philip Devenish moved that the senate reconnnend to the Academic Councilthat the word ordinarily be struck from section 17.2 of the Academic Code.The motion was seconded by Prof. Vincent DeSantis. Concern was expressed thatthis would box in the University in conceivable extenuating circumstances orpreclude appeals by students.

Due to the late hour Phillip Helman moved to table the motion until the nextmeeting. Prof. Dino Cervigni seconded the motion. The motion was approvedand the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Those absent but not excused: Harald Esch, biology; Robert G. Hayes, chemistry;James E. Houghton, aerospace and mechanical engineering; Steven Hurtt, architecture;Norman Crowe, architecture; Jay Labinger, chemistry; Eugene Marshalek, physics;Barbara McGowan, American studies; Thomas Merluzzi, psychology; Rufus Rauch,emeritus; James P. Sterba, philosophy; F. Ellen Weaver, theology; J. RobertWegs, history.


w. Phillip HelmanSecretary


THE JOURNALDecember 8, 1980

At 7:30 p.m. the chairman, Prof. Robert Vacca called the meeting to order inroom 202 of the Center for Continuing Education. Prof. William Burke offeredthe prayer.

Prof. Rufus Rauch expressed a feeling that the Journal for November 10, 1980did not adequately reflect the meeting of the Academic and Faculty AffairsCommittee of the Board of Trustees. The Committee had spent several hours discussing topics acted upon by the Faculty Senate and important to the facultyat large. Prof. Vincent DeSantis said that the setbacks of the senate proposalon emeriti benefits should have been explicitly stated. DeSantis moved thatthe minutes not be approved until the report was expanded. Rauch seconded themotion. Additional discussion variously suggested that: the Faculty SenateJournal was an inappropriate place for the minutes of another body's meeting;that the senate must be concerned with the continuity of its proposals to otherbodies, that this Journal may be the only conveyance to all of the faculty;and that it appeared as if a dramatic suggestion on library funding had beenlost between the Committee meeting and the Board meeting the next day. Prof.Mario Borelli suggested that the motion be changed to mandate the chairman toexpand the report of the meeting to his satisfaction. Vacca suggested that theexpanded report be an appendix to the Journal. DeSantis and Rauch acceptedthis change, and the motion was adopted. The Journal for November 10, 1980was then approved.

In the chairman's report, Vacca announced that the January meeting of the senatewith the provost was rescheduled from the 21st to the 22nd due to a basketballgame. Vacca noted that comprehensive tests of the levels of asbestos in the airof the library had been completed and the air found to be relatively safe.

Vacca also reported that the Budget Priorities Committee had met several timesin their study of optimizing fringe benefits. The joint B.P.C.-Faculty Senatequestionnaire to the teaching and research faculty on tuition aid is ready tobe sent out, but will be held until the beginning of the next semester. Theparallel questionnaire from the senate to the non-teaching and research facultywill be sent out at the same time. Prof. Vaughn McKim has assembled a summaryof faculty compensation. B.P.C. will consult with other experts on the balanceamong fringe benefits, the current appearance is that Notre Dame, relative topeer schnols, is somewhat lower in retirement benefits, higher in health benefitsand tuition benefits. Feedback to the B.P.C. may be most useful next springwhen more data 1's ready.

Prof. Dino Cervigni expressed concern that the results of this study would notbe available in time to affect next year's budget and then would be regardedas lIoutdated, II' and that the average of compensation over the universi"ty was toobroad in that it hid differences between departments. In the ensuing discussionit was pointed out that over the years many attempts had been made to obtainsuch statistics by department or college but none had succeeded and that differing demand in the marketplace forced some salary differences without regard forsocial justice. Vacca then suggested that further discussion on this matter bedeferred until McKim's report had been formally presented.

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALDecember 8, 1980Page 2

Prof. William Burke reporting for the Committee on Student Affairs said thatthe Teacher/Course Evaluation group was to meet the following day. In meetingsof the committee with admissions officials, concern had been expressed as towhat the faculty could do. The problems seen by admissions was minority studentrecruitment in two areas; first, some do not seriously consider Notre Dame,second, the best receive attractive offers from many universities. Volunteersto help in the time consuming admissions process would, however, be welcomed.DeSantis emphasized that the T.C.E. committee should seriously consider theoption of dropping the T.C.E. evaluation rather than revising the form.

McKim, reporting for the Committee on Faculty Affairs described the developmentof the faculty compensation report that had been distributed before the meeting.The document grew from the usual comparison of compensation at Notre Dame withpeer and similar universities. This report analyzes the effect on average compensation of the lower than usual fraction of the faculty at the higher paidrank of full professor and its effect upon the stated goal of the administrationto achieve an AAUP rank 1 rating. The report also comments upon the cost ofachieving a rank 1 rating and the sources of funds that are and can be used forincreased compensation. A retrospective comparison is also given of the declining purchasing power of the average faculty salary over the past decade.

McKim suggested that with careful development and positive suggestions thiscould become a valuable contribution by the senate to the provost's new studyon university priorities. Vacca indicated that the senate should issue a document based on this report which can be widely distributed.

The initial discussion centered on the distribution of full professors. Onesuggestion for the reason, was the changing of the criteria 8 to 10 years agoto require worldwide recognition. The distribution is a cumulative effect ofmany years, however, and the average age of the Notre Dame faculty, about 42-1/2years, is similar to the ages of other faculties. Again the question of differences within each rank was discussed, especially differences between collegesand departments, indicating intense interest and concern. McKim suggested thatany way the statistics are compiled, Notre Dame looks low, thus a more usefulquestion would be how to increase the budget total for compensation rather thanhow evenly it is divided. Several suggestions were made for the study of theproportion of the budget spent on the faculty, the level of tuition, the usebeing made of gifts and what is becoming of funds "freed" by endowed chairs.

The meeting was recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.

As old business Prof. Philip Devenish withdrew his motion on grade changed infavor of wording drafted and circulated by Prof. Michael Francis. Francismoved that the senate recorrunend to the Academic Council that the second sentenceof section 17.2 of the Academic Code be replaced by:

Except under the most extraordinary circumstances, no one butthe instructor in charge of a course can give a grade in thatcourse or change a grade given. If, due to extraordinary circumstances, a grade is changed by a Dean or a Chairman, theinstructor giving the original grade, the Provost, and the Deanor Chairman must be notified in writing.

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALDecember 8, 1980Page 3

The motion was seconded by McKim. Suggestions were made that the approval ofthe chairman, dean and provost be required, that extraordinary circumstancesbe defined and that more than notification was required. Several specificexamples of grade changes were discussed in which the instructor was not informedor did not concur in the grade change. A question was raised if chairman anddean could be for the student's department rather than the instructor's departnlent. Prof. Arvind Varma suggested that if the reasons for a grade change weregood they should be put in writing to the instructor. Some changes in wordingwere suggested and as a friendly amendment the motion was changed to:

No one but the instructor in charge of a course can give agrade in that course or change a grade given except underextraordinary circumstances. In extraordinary circumstancesa grade may be changed by the Dean with the approval, inwriting, of the Chairman and the Provost. The instructorgiving the grade must be notified, in writing, of the changeand the reasons for it.

Prof. Mario Borelli moved to anlffiend the motion by deleting the requirement forgiving reasons, Prof. William Tageson seconded. Discussion of the amendmentsuggested that the instructor will know why without its being written, coveredcurrent rules for the instructor changing the grade and likely reaction by theAcademic Council and adlninistration. In voting,the amendment failed, the motionpassed without dissent. '


Those absent but not excused: Gail T. Bulmer, AFROTC; Charles Crutchfield, law;Walter J. Gajda, electrical engineering; Robert G. Hayes, chemistry; John J.Kennedy, marketing; Eugene R. Marshalek, physics; Barbara McGowan, Americanstudies; Thomas Merluzzi, psychology; Alven M. Neiman, CORE; Edward R. Trubac,finance and business economics; Norman Crowe, architecture.


W. Phillip HelmanSecretary

APPENDIX

THE JOURNALDecember 8, 1980

Extension of Chairmanls report to the Senate on the October 16, 1980 meetingof the Academic and Faculty Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees (AFACBT).

t

~he senate has asked that a fuller account of the AFACBT meeting than appearsln the Journal of 11/10/80 be added to the record. What follows is an accountof that meeting as it bore on senate interests, not minutes of the meeting.

The first agendum was discussion of improved retirement benefits for emeriti,their spouses, and wi"dows. The Provost presented to the Committee policy changesapproved by the Officers of the University (reported in Notre Dame Reports,#3, 1980/81, p. 76). These changes came about in response to the senate proposal of March, 1980, on emeriti benefits; the differences between the senateand administration versions were such that the senate, at the meeting of October15, voted to characterize the" administration version as unacceptable.

The senate proposal contemplat~d two kinds of improvements: for the needy,an i'ncrease in the guaranteed minimum inc;ome from the 1975 figure (\f $7,000for a couple to $10,000 (with only TIAA/CREF and Social Security to be takeninto account in determining level of income), a figure of $8,000 for a singleretiree~ and an extension of the $8,000 minimum to the widows of retirees.For all retirees: that the university absorb the cost of Blue Cross-Blue Shieldsupplement to medicare and 100% of the cost of a $2,000 life insurance policy.(The university at present pays 25% of the life insurance premium and none ofthe BC-BS.)

The administration's version offers: for the needy, an increase in the guaranteedminimum income to $10,500 for a couple and $8,250 for a single person (with allincome, but not property, to be taken into account in determining level of income). These totals include the BC-BS cost of $250/person. The administration'sstatement says, liThe University will also review the circumstances of widows orwidowers of retirees as a matter of course. II For all retirees: no change inmedical or life insurance.

It is clear that the senate and administration versions are in essential aqreernent so far as benefits for the needy are concerned. And discussion at theAFACBT meeti'ng resolved certain ambiguities in this secto"r that had promptedthe senate to call the administration's version unacceptable. The senate hadbeen especially concerned about an apparent evasiveness regarding the status ofwi"dows; it became clear, however, that the university would take the initiativein contacting widows and explaining the benefits to them, and that there was nointention of denying widows the $8,250 minimum. Furthermore, as Dr. Carney,chairman of the AFACBT observed, once this benefit has been tendered it cannotbe wi"thdrawn. The university does, however wish to accumulate more precise cost'data during the next year before making a more formal policy statement regardingwidows or widowers. In addition, the discussion resolved favorably the senatefears that some kind of means test was contemplated for the needy (it is not)

APPENDIX to the JOURNALDecember 8, 1980Page 2 .

and that this policy would not be regularly reviewed (there will be a biennialrevi ew).

It ;s also clear that the senate proposal was not successful in the matter ofincreasing university contributions to insurance costs for all emeriti. Univers i ty representati yes di d poi nt out that BC-BS may be ·purchased by the ret; red,henceforth, at a lower group rate than heretofore, and that by including thiscost in the mintmum income figure the university has guaranteed its affordabilityfor a.ll. The ques tion of the 1i fe insurance prerni urn was remanded to the BudgetPri·orities Corrunittee for a second look when the possibility arose that insurancefor the retired might be had at the group rate ($12.24/year/thousand) insteadof the over-65 rate ($43.80/year/thousand). ~It should be added, however, thatthe BPC subsequently learned that Notre Dame s contract with the carrier willnot permit it.)

From the senate's point of view t therefore, the whole matter of enhanced insurancebenefits for the retired must-be reclassified as a future agendum. It appearsthat because of the competition for funds of many legitimate causes it is notenough for the senate to argue that fairness calls for the retired to enjoy thesame benefits as the active faculty. What is needed is a more specific set ofreasons why this goal is particularly compelling here and now.

The second agendum was discussion of the new procedure for appeal of decisionson promation t tenure or reappointment. The Provost outlined the principalfeatures of the procedure approved by the Academic Council at its Septembermeeting. (The text of the procedure may be found in NDR, #3,1980-81, p. 92.)This procedure differs in almost all respects from the senate's (the senateversion is in NOR, #3, 1980-81, pp. 96-99), and an enumeration of the differenceswould be unnecess;arily laborious.

The points advanced on behalf of the senate were essentially the same as thosethe senators themselves had raised at the meeting the previous evening. Specifically, there is no clear statement of the reviewer's mandate, powers andprocedures, a situation which may inhibit the reviewer1s effectiveness; thereis the evidence of informal polling to the effect that few would take on thereviewer's job t which is perceived as demanding and a no-win task; the failureto report in detail back to the aggrieved preserves the miasma of secrecy thatbesets us; there ·is no clear statement of how the quality,of this procedure willbe assessed after its experimental year. The senate's resolution of the previousevening, that a joi·nt administ~ation-faculty committee (including the sena.te)study the operation of this procedure and that the senate itself poll facultyopinion in due course, was presented to the committee.

During the course of discussion~ Professor Nicholas Fiore observed that on thebasis of his experience with Committee A of the AAUP there would not in factbe grave difficulties in finding qualified persons to serve as reviewers, norwas a single reviewer in all cases an inferior arrangement to have. He, andothers present, did agree that the revi ew of the procedure was very important butill-defined. The Provost did not outline any precise method for assessing,the

APPENDIX to the JOURNALDecember 8, 1980Page 3

procedure, but it was agreed that he would report back to the AFACBT in oneyear on the success or lack of it of this appeals mechanism.

The third agendum was a consideration of the state of the university libraries.As.there is no specific senate action pending in this matter, summary may bebr!ef. Dr. Robert Miller, Director of University Libraries, prepared and distrlbuted to the administration in January, 1980, a Fi--ye Year Development Programoutlining library needs and their costs. This document provided a basis fordiscussion.

The purpose of the discussion was to learn if all members of the committeecould agree, first, that the priorities enumerated in the report were thecorrect priorities; second, that the costs were of the correct order of magnitude given the university's academic aspirations (without consideration ofthe university's ability to meet these costs); finally, whether everythingpossi'ble was in fact being done to improve library funding.

The ensuing discussion--which.concentrated on acquisitions and touched on library automation--did seem to reflect consensus agreement on the first twoheadings. Di'fferences of opinion then emerged on how library development compared with other university priorities. Some felt that without immediate anddrastic improvement for the libraries, the university was on lI a crash courseto mediocrity't; others argued that if inflation could be held at bay we couldlive with the problem for the time being. The provost characterized the fiveyear plan as an excellent set of goals, but said that with current resourceswe could not do much more than not lose ground to our peer universities.

With some vehemence the idea was put forward that the library should immediatelyhave the benefit of $10 million of endowment funds. That amount was targetedin the original eND; and while it is true that that amount has not been secured,the eND itself is oversubscribed, so that it should be possible to make up thedifference. Discussion of this point led to consideration of various ways thatcapital could be restructured for library purposes. Dr. Carney, stressing hisconviction of the urgency of the matter and the need for an extraordinary solution, promised to make a presentation to the whole Board of Trustees.

The two remaining agenda, the structure of the faculty fringe package andun;vers;'ty plans to make early retirement attractive, while bearing on senateinterests, were not discussed at any length. Professor Herbert Sim, reportingfor the faculty subcommittee of the budget priorities committee, stated thatresearch into these questions was just getting underway.


THE JOURNALJanuary 22, 1981

At 7:34 p.m. the chairman, Prof. ~obert Vacca, called the meeting to order inroom 202 of the Center for Continuing. Education and led the Senate in prayer.Prof. Michael Frahcis moved and Prof. Vaughn McKim seconded the approval ofThe Journal for December 8, 1980 with Appendix.

Vacca introduced the provost, Prof. Timothy 0'~1eara, who invited the senate'squestions.

McKim said that he had heard that the new Arts and Letters faculty office build~ing was at last to be built, and asked if it had now been funded. O'Meara repliedthat the situation looks very good, but that not all matters had been resolvedand that he could not mention the name of prospective donors at this time.

Francis noted that the impact of recent endowments from the Campaign for NotreDame is being felt now and asked in what roles the faculty might be more activein shaping the future of the university. O'Meara first pointed out the distinction between pledges and funds received. In many instances, gifts have alreadybeen restricted to a specific purpose by the donor, endowed chairs being a casein point. Concerning chairs, 14 have been filled and about 14 more are ready tobe filled, but the difficulty of filling them with the right people remains.In some cases a new strategy may be needed, such as clustering several chairs inone department. O'Meara then bro~ght up his charge to reexamine the prioritiesof the University and report to the president. For this he will rely on twocommittees, the Provost's Advisory Committee and a special faculty committeewhich was soon to meet. This committee was chosen from all parts of the university, not, precisely, to represent those parts, but in order to provide multiplepoints of view. Input wi 11 be soli ci ted from all of the facul ty, and all concernsof the university will be open for discussion. The final report will be writtenby the provost and based on the work of these committees, then submitted to thepresident, who may act on the report according to his discretion. Among thetopics likely to be examined are the Library and its funding, new programs forthe Center for Continuing Education, faculty development opportunities, thecreation of new Institutes, the pursuit of excellence--in respect to teachingand research, in analysis of obstacles to excellence--also, alumni relations,and the question of the next fund drive (to give only some examples). The studywill occupy the whole of next year. All pertinent university records will beaval~lable to these two committees. However, the amount of material involvedmight be found daunting. Prof. William Burke asked if "white papers" prepar·edby the Senate would be a contribution to this project. O'Meara replied thatthey would indeed.

Prof. Paul Conway recalled that when ·O'Meara became provost he had expressed theintention of stepping down at the end of the 1981-82 academic year. In view ofpossi'ble changes in the administration, and in the interest of continuitY,didthis still hold? O'Meara answered that there were too many variables for himto comment at the present time. Among other considerations, the wishes of thepresident--possibly a new president--would be of obvious importance.

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALJanuary 22, 1981Page 2·

Vacca asked for clarification of what was meant by the apparently heightenedinterest in new Institutes. O'Meara gave his own current activity on reviewcommittees and site visits for a national mathematics institute as illustrative.Such institutes mean access to considerable sums of money that could be used toattract and support scholars at a time when declining student enrollments preventedenlarging the teaching staff. Although university money might start such an institute, the university could not continue funding for more than a few years.Outside funding would then have to take over. Nor should Institutes be divorcedfrom the wider life of the university; students and faculty should find themresources for research for example. Our existing Center for·Pastoral and SocialMinistry, the Center for the Study of Human and Civil Rights, the RadiationLaboratory, and other groups are examples of institutes at Notre Dame; fundinqis, of course, the hard element; government funds do playa large role, but private support is not inconsiderable ..

Prof. Arvind Varma asked for clarification of the difficulties in filling endowedcha irs .. 0' Meara offered two exampl es. One i ndi vi dua1 approached had anotheroffer including not only a very large salary, and lab space, equipment funds,and moving expenses on a grand scale, but two "satellite" chairs in that department for this fortunate individual to use. Wherefore we might contemplate clustering chair-resources in a few departments instead of attempting to distributethem equally among the departments. Another case required that the university'soffer be considerably sweetened by a lucrative consulting position for thesummers. Senators present affirmed that such were the realities in their fieldsthese days. O'Meara added the observation that some academic fields are imperilled by the emphasis on money: entrance salaries are so high in the professionsthat fewer and fewer wi 11 undertake the Ph. D., nor can the univers i ty eas i lycompete with industry for new Ph.D.'s. .

Prof. Alexander Hahn asked what action might be taken against the 11100% effortaccounting" required by the federal government's ci rcul ar A- 21 . 0' Meara repl i edthat this was one illustration of the mindless application ·of accountability inour society. Fr. Hesburgh has written in protest of A-2l.

Prof. Joseph Tihen remarked that while the actual efforts being made in thehiring and promotions of women and minorities might be good, the appearance,at least, fell short of that in the eyes of many. Perhaps a full time affirmattve action officer was desirable. O'Meara replied that the university's recordwith women was better than with minorities, but that neither was what we wouldwish. Special scrutiny is already given to ensure fairness to minorities andwomen. An affirmative action officer who could help identify new candidates mightbe considered, but a special interest advocate would not be helpful. Nor was itclear that an individual outside a aiven academic field could accurately identifygood candidates within it. A better way--and a way the university attempts towork--is to encourage contacts with superior graduate departments in an effortto i·dentify likely prospects early.

James Neal asked if there would be any advance in the date of announcing promotionsand salaries this year. O'Meara indicated that there would not, for the time

______neede~ __~() ~gmp1ete the budget woul d not permi tit.· There is reason to be1i eve,

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALJanuary 22, 1981Page 3

however, that the general level of salary increases will be good this year,approximating, perhaps even exceeding, inflation. O'Meara also disclosed thathe has set $18,000 as the minimum salary for all regular assistant professorsnext year.

Prof. Michael Crowe suggested that more thought be given to filling chairs fromwithin Notre Dame, and, noting that our faculty has an unusua'llY small fractionof full professors, suggested that more development help be given to the presentfaculty to assist its progress toward chair level. O'Meara responded that thesearch to fill a chair does include consideration of present faculty members.Leaves should be in aid of enhanced scholarship; they are not merely periodicrests. Although leave funding can be difficult,. there are considerable financialresources available for those who seek them out. Prof. Ellen Weaver commentedthat those in particular need of leave assistance included. junior faculty seekingtenure and those whose subjects were not popular with outside funding agencies.O'Meara said that a good chairman would be of assistance in such case's, eitherus ing depa rtmenta1 resources, or by gi vi ng advi ce on outs i de money.

Prof. John Van Engen asked if dental insurance had been considered. O'Mearaindicated that it had but that other things. seemed more important.

Phillip Helman asked if anything was decided at the last meeting of the Boardof Trustees on library funding and what could be foreseen in the future for suchfunding. O'Meara declined comment on the Board- meeting, but speculated that the$10,000,000 in endowment funds scheduled in the C.N.D. will appear. The fiveyear plan for library development, however, finds need for twice that amount.Next year's budget increase should match the costs of inflation, which for libraryacquisitions rises faster than the general inflation rate. Also some discretionaryfunds, if available, may be added for specific identifiable purposes such as,this past year, preservation of volumes and improving the music collection.

Tihen asked if late notice applied to the announcement of tenure decisions, assome mtnortties and women feel particularly vulnerable and may accept otheroffers rather than wait to hear from Notre Dam~. O'Meara said that he had madeno effort to advance the announcement date. Many C.A.P.s are busy with recruiting during fall semester, arid several months are required once the C.A.P.shaveacted. He doubted, however, that Notre Dame had lost anyone they really wantedto keep because of the late announcement. Rather he knew of decisions that were

. made earlier because of other offers~ Hahn suggested that at least a date beset to relieve some early anxiety. O'Meara said that the announcements wouldprobably come at the same time as last year, but that he would try to informfaculty of the announcement dates.

Crowe returned to the question why the ratio of associate to full professors isso htgh. O'Meara suggested that this was at least in part due to the increasedemphasis on excellence in scholarship in recent years. In the years since somewere hired and given tenure the standards for scholarship have risen significantly.Excellent teaching alone is no longer sufficient, nor is excellent research, wemust have both.


McKim asked what the implication was for the comparison schools with a largerfull to associate professor ratio. O'Meara said that depended upon the school:some had committed themselves to enhanced scholarship earlier and had not changedtheir standards as recently, others may make/promotion to full easier to oetthan tenure. "

Prof. Joan Aldous said that she had read that the discrimination suit againstNotre Dame was soon to be settled out of court. O'Meara declined to comment onthe suit at this time.

Prof. William Tageson asked what happened to the senate proposal on promotion andtenure appeals, as the final version seems watered-down. O'Meara said that hisinitial reaction to the senate version had been favorable but after listening toarguments from all sides, including the deans, had decided on a leaner approach.The Academic Council voted down the senate version. Basically, administrationshould be lean, not too big a mechanism for the situation. _ Similarly, the proposedprocedure for grade changes may involve too many people (chairman, dean and provost).This is a big mechanism for an infrequent situation.

McKim noted that many things that needed to be done involve the budget, a largefraction of which comes from tuition, which remains lower at Notre Dame than atmost comparable schools. O'Meara sa.id this was in part a conservative attitudeof not pricing ourselves out of the market for students we want to attract. Hewas aware of the possibility of raisinf} tuition and usinq scholarships to offsetthe rise for students in need, but any move in that direction should only be madeafter much analysis of the human, psychological, and financial factors involved.

Prof. Charles Parnell asked if departments for which the pool of minorities andwomen was larger have been pressured to accept them to compensate for other departments facing a small pool. O'Meara said that departments were asked only to consider minorities and women seriously, not to accept them if there isa clearlybetter candidate. A grey zone does exist, however, where benefit of the doubtmay be asked. Furthermore, affirmativE~ action always related appointments toavailability in the discipline in question.

McKim asked if this rule applied to religious affiliation as well. O'Meara saidthat it did. An affirmative action approach should be taken in hiring in order tomaximize the number of applicants, whether the group be minorities, women, Catholics,or members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross--but then one must choose the bestcandidate. At the time of promotion all faculty members are to be treated alike.In general, we should not hire inferior candidates for the sake of their religiousor minority status. O'Meara insisted, however, that the Catholic heritage andcharacter of the Uni vers i ty be 'borne in mi nd through vi gorous, good fai th, affi rmative action at appointment time to seek out superior candidates who are Catholicand support the goals of the institution, especially in those departments wherethey are few in number. The same applies to minorities and women.

The senate thanked Prof. O'Meara for coming and the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.


Those absent but not excused: Charles F. Crutchfield, law; Walter J. Gajda, Jr.,electrical engineering; Robert G. Hayes, chemist~; James E. Houghton, aerospaceand mechanical engineering; John J. Kennedy, marketing; Jay A. Labinger, chemistry;Barbara McGowan, American studies; Thomas V. Merluzzi, psychology; James P. Sterba,philosophy; Edward R. Trubac, finance and business economics.



In accordance with standing Senate policy, this Journal has been edited inmutual agreement with our guest speaker.


THE JOURNALFebruary 9, 1981

The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. in room 202 of the Center forContinuing Education by the chairman, Prof. Robert" Vacca, and a prayer wasoffered by Mr. James Deffenbaugh.

In the chairman's report, Vacca asked for information on incidents of a professor's grade being changed within the last three or· four years. Th.e vtew-has been expressed by the Provost's Advisory Council that this is such a rareevent that action such as the senate has recommended is uncalled for. Accurateinformation on the subject will be helpful. Vacca also reported that the annualsurvey of faculty willingness to serve on university committees has beenmailed. The names of those willing to serve will be forewarded to the appropriatenominating or appointive bodies. Third, a follow-up mailing for the FacultySenate/Budget Priorities Committee study of faculty children tuition benefitshas been sent out to those not responding to the original mailing.

The "Faculty Compensation at Notre Dame" report prepared by Prof. Vaughn McKimin collaboration with Vacca was then reported to be ready for approval by thewhole senate. The report differs from the previous 'draft only in minor revisionsand some added detail on fringe benefits. Discussion centered on the implications of a prospective $18,000 floor on salaries, with the conclusion that datapertaini.ng to the questi.ons ra5sed wa~ not· avatlable at this time~Deffenbaugh moved approval and distribution of the. report, Prof. Joseph Tihenseconded, the motion passed unanimously.

The senate expressed its thanks to McKim for the great amount of work that heput into the report.

Prof. Alexander Hahn reported on the work of the special committee on circularA-2l. Several university senates and other academic organizations have formallyprotested new rules by the Office of Management and Budget requiring 100% accounti ng of effort by~ facul ty at a uni vers i ty if any of the facul ty have federalresearch grants. As implemented at Notre Dame ~partment chairman estimatesthe percent of time spent by members of the department in several activitiesand fills out forms for the individuals to sign. Activities include teaching,research, committee work and administrative efforts. The committee recommendedthat the senate associate itself with the resolution of the National Academy ofScience which reads:

While supporting the principle of accountability for usage ofpublic funds, the National Academy of Sciences views with concernthe proposed implementation of OMB revised circular A-21, effectiveJuly 1, 1980. Application of these new regulations to institutionsof higher learning would further constrain the already limitedflexibil ity ·in research thrust, increase'. the adT!linistrative burden,reduce morale among teaching and research person~el, and providea cumberso'me, meani ngl ~ss documenta ti on in terms of percent-nf-effort

THE FACULTY SENATEFebruary 9, 1981Page 2

for a continuum of scholarly activities. Moreover, because theseregulations would monitor non-federally supported academic functions as well, inappropriate controls might be exercised. Wetherefore urge reconsideration of regulations embodied in A-2land we recommend that the Council of the Academy examine thissituation so as to propose appropriate ways of achievingaccountability.

Discussion covered the reports of activity prepared at Notre Dame this year,the extent to which such figures are significant, the misuse to which they miqhtbe put and personal reactions to the requirement. Hahn moved that the senateassociate itself with the N.A.S. statement, Prof. Mario Borelli seconded the'motion. The final sentence recommending action of the council was deemed inappropri ate and changed to read: "We therefore urge recons i derati on of regul ati ons embodi ed in A- 21, and in parti cul ar, abandonment of percent-of-effortaccounting for academic staff. 1I The motion passed unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 8:06 p.m., and resuMed at 8:10 p.m. Vacca read a state...me-nt introducing the next agenda i tern, the preparation of a report on facul tygovernance and the future of the senate.

One year ago, the senate faced a heavy agenda. Those of you who were withthe senate last year will recall that we were at work on our version of theAppeals Procedure, the Teacher and Course Evaluation modifications, improvement of emeriti benefits, efforts to clarify how junior faculty wouldbe informed annually of their progress toward tenure, modification of themanner of review of administrators and chairmen, and other matters.

Our situation this year is quite different. We have completed the mostcomprehensive compensation report in the serate's history, but we haveno other large-scale matters to deal with. The study of fringe benefitsis going on joi ntly wi th the Facul ty Subcommi ttee of the Budget Pri ori ti esCommittee--and should soon provide us with the numbers we wanted in orderto pursue our resolution of securing for the non Teaching and ResearchFaculties all the children's tuition benefits currently enjoyed by theT&R Faculty; but the Faculty Affairs Committee has no other task inprogress, si'nce Library funding," its other possible area of inquiry, hasbeen settled for the next fiscal year. The Student Affairs Committee didnot think that senate involvement with the admissions procedures was calledfor at this time, and the Committee on Administration, after looking intoquestions of the hiring and-retention of women and minorities, declinedto recommend any senate action.

It is not indolence on our part that has brought us here; it is, instead,a kind of lull in university affairs that we see. Responsibility--orcredit, if you wish--for this state of affairs lies in part with theProvost, who has an admirable talent for minimizing controversy, and inpart also with the Sense of an interregnum that so many have noted. Ina number of our colleges deans are being reviewed or new deans are beingsought; and the probability of the retirement of Fathers Hesburgh andJoyce in the not too distant future seems high. Many things seem to beon hold, as the saying has it.

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALFebrua ry 9, 1981Page 3

Yet this must be seen as an opportunity for the senate, a greater opportunity than this organization has ever had, for making its voice heardin overall university policy. The President and the Provost have cometo the senate this year; both were asked if senate contributions to thenew study of university goals and problems were appropriate, and both saidthey were.

But how are we to proceed? The senate Executive Committee raised thisquestion at its last meeting and reached these conclusions: first, thatthere is every reason to begin at once, and no reason to wai't until thefall; second, that we must determine an agenda of issues in which thefaculty has an interest, remembering that all questions are open--weshould not restrict ourselves to a small list'of traditional topics;third, that we should select no more than two or three of these topicsfor careful and extensive senate study (the Compensation Report is a modelof the kind of "white paper" document we want to produce), and refer theothers to the new Faculty Advisory Committee for study; fourth, that wemust determine how we are going to proceed with these selected topics:shall we use the standing committees or create new ones? what are theresearch questions we must answer, and how do we find the answers?

The executive committee endorsed Michael Francis' observation that thequestion of the role of the faculty in univ~rsity governance was the mostobvious and appropriate topic for our consideratiori. Some discussion ofthis matter is appropriate at this meeting, for our sense of what the senateought to be and do will influence our choice of further topics and theway we will address them.

I will place this question on the floor,' in the hope that our discuss~onwill lead toa program of action. I wish to add only a few of the questionsthat seem to me to be of particular importance in the issue: first, shouldthe senate understand itself as a research group, or as a pl.ace wherefaculty attitudes toward administrative poli'cies are aired? Second, shouldthe senate have a stronger executi ve?· I refer to the fact that the senatechairman is one voice and vote among many at the Academic Council, andhas virtually no influence whatever in comparison to the Provost's AdvisoryCouncil. The collapse of our Appeals Procedure last year is ample illustration of the fact. Third, ~ven apart from the precise role of the senate,do we want to question the degree and effectiveness of faculty participation in such key organizations as the Academic Council, the Provost'sAdvisory Committee, the Budget Priorities Committee, and the Committee onAdmissions, to name only some? Do we think the Faculty Board in Controlof Athlettcs should become what its name implies it already is?

Let me place this question on the floor, then, for open discussion.

Discussion began with the question of the role of the senate in the university,should i't be a research role as exemplified by the "Faculty Compensation at NotreDame" report, or should it be' a sounding board, a vent for faculty opinions.Vacca potnted out that research documents requite much work on the part of individuals. Some groups such as the Provost's Advisory Council have sources of

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALFebruary 9, 1981Page 4

information and people to work on projects such as these, few faculty membershave such resources. .

Borelli commented that a starting point could be to discover what the universityfeels the role of the Faculty Senate should be. He pointed out that one exofficio vote and power of agenda on the Academic Council is not much power.

Prof. Charles Parnell urged that research should be done before the fact; reactionto accomplished policy does not work. Just voicing objections·does no good,nothing will be accomplished. The way to accomplish things is to raise hell.Individuals may have. to storm in on chairmen to seek a raise, the chairman stormin on the dean. By implication the senate may need to act as a pressure group tolobby for what it wants. .

Prof. Vincent DeSantis pointed out that the Faculty Manual would have to be changedif the senate were to gain more power, be more than a Czechos10vakia.n parliament.This might require that the chairman of the senate be an ex officio me~ber· ofvarious committees, perhaps have more than a one year term. Thi s senate is notlike the.faculty senates at many universities in that it is without power .. Theproblem is not that officials of the university do not listen to us.

Francis suggested that we should look into the role of faculty senates elsewhere.

Prof. William Burke suggested that a historical perspective is also appropriate.Since 1949 the university governance has changed with the emergence of the laytrustees. The strengths and weaknesses revealed by the senate's history shouldbe studied in deciding where to go, what to do, and how to get there.

Prof. Joseph Tihen suggested that we should not try to separate discussion on howthe senate should operate from its powers and impact. If the senate is to convinceothers on matters of importance, then it needs the research to get data.

Borelli presented several questions: were the senators willing to do the datagathering work? Are we at a stage where change is appropriate? He expressedthe opinion that the senate should be more than a debating society. or one simplyreacting to others' ideas.

McKtm pointed out that the administration has many information resources, but doesnot always use them fully itself nor make them available. In the course of preparing the faculty compensation report a simple request for a report at a lowlevel of administration worked up to the level of the provost for decision. Arequest for information on tuition benefits led to recognizing that some bills.had been put in the wrong category for years. This exercise in research proveduseful quite apart from any impact of the report itself.

Vacca pointed out that from the point of view of the administration, the facultyis already represented on all academi c pol icy commi ttees, e. g. P. A. C. E., and waslikely to ask why any new input was needed.

Prof. Donald Barrett said that he would like to think that the senate is in morethan an adversary position with the administration. In particular there should


be no suspicion caused by the senate requesting information from the administration. The senate should be trusted and have some right to information. If weare viewed as adversaries, as we suspect, then some change 'is needed.

Prof. Mi chael Crowe expressed a speci fi c concern about the provost'l s Facul tyAdvisory Committee. The library is very important to the future of the university,but there is no library member to bring their point of view to the committee.

Burke pointed out that the senate does have influence and is listened to by theupper administration .. The senate has initiated many changes at Notre Dame, forexample, allowing faculty alternates at the Academic Council, even though thesenate usually does not entirely get its way.

Hahn said that the basis of our influence is as a voice representing the faculty,although we may not be taking full advantage of the fact. There is some doubt,though, that the faculty should submit all types of grievances to the senate.

Burke suggested that there is a great iack of communication with those we represent.For example, there is a two month delay in getting the minutes published in NotreDame Reports.

Prof. Arvind Varma pointed out that the administration can also argue that theelected faculty on the Academic Council provide sufficient faculty representat~on.

Borelli said that even the election of faculty to a committee does not mean thatall facul ty interests are properly represe'nted.

Deffenbaugh asked if it is some 1oca1 secret that shoul d not be di.scussed, thatthe Academic Council can be considered a packed gallery (by the administration)?If it is such, that is very significant.

Vacca satd that the council is weak in that it meets only twice a year, is effectively run by its executive committee and is too big to run otherwise. On paperit deals with anything involving academic policy, but in practice it deals mostlywith details and does not initiate much on its own.

Prof. Steven Hurtt commented that we do not want to compete for that kind of power.If the senate record is to be good it must be from our research backing up ourrecommendations. Perhaps we need more staff help, perhaps we need more feedbackfrom the rest of the faculty on what we are doing.

Parnell recalled that the provost had mentioned more institutes as a possiblechange in Notre Dame's future. This is a basic policy change that needs to bediscussed, for current institutes seem to be a way to bring in money, but theycontribute little to undergraduate instruction.

Borelli said that the faculty neeos a stronger voice on the Teacher-Course.Evaluation issue, for last year's survey showed strong feelings on that subject.

McKim suggested that one way to get clear what we want the senate to be is to askwhat would be missing if the senate did not exist. One thing is the freedom to


discuss issues without the administration being present (as it is in the academiccouncil). We could invite members of the administration or university committeesto senate meetings and sound them out and discuss matters with them. This couldbe admissions, financial aid, T.C.E., whatever. A better-informed senate is amore influential senate.

Prof. Fred Dallmayr said this is a good suggestion, but it is just doinq a littlemore of the traditional thing. Maybe we have an opportunity to do something nowwhile others wait to see if a new administration will be coming. The senate shouldreflect on where Notre Dame shou19 be going,and what it means to bea greatuniversity. It must mean a great faculty, and a great faculty should have and musthave great influence. Are administrators better qualified to judge academic matters?The faculty is the backbone in this area. Input should be constitutionally defined,not just asked by grace of the administration. How can the senate be part of agreat university in a meaningful way? The provost1s faculty advisory committee isa good idea, but the senate should be involved in this review as a matter of course.We should not think in terms of "power struggles," but in terms of how to representthe faculty more effectively. But that must be as an institutionalized part ofagreat university.

Prof. Robert Wegs commented that·he had come from another university and felt thatby comparison it is almost meaningless to be on the Notre Dame senate. He askedif we were to seek an enhanced position, would there be at least the possibilityof a helpful compromise.

Vacca summed up the session as dealing with four topics: the statutory position,history, influence, and access .to information of the senate. The executive committee will review the discussion and try to pull it together.

Hurtt recommended that the senatels ultimate report be cooperative rather thanconfrontational, and that the right of access be assumed rather than de~anded.

Parnell suggested that the way to accomplishment is forcefulness. He also pointedout that when the president and provost attend senate meetings, they generallytell us what has been done, but do not ask our views as to what should be done.

Vacca suggested that as another pbssible senate res~arch effort it would be wellif the experiences with endowed chairs of all of the departments were to be collatedas a step i'n evaluating that policy.


Those absent but not excused: Rudolph Bottei, chemi stry; Cha rl es Crutchfi e1d, 1aw;Walter J.Gajda, Jr.; electricalengineerin§; Robert G. Hayes, chemistry; James E.Houghton, aerospace and mechanical engineering; Jay A. Labinger, chemistry; BarbaraMcGowan, American studies; Thomas Merluzzi, psychology; C~ William Tageson, psychology;Norman Crowe, architecture; J. Eric Smithburn, law.

Respectfully' submitted,



THE JOURNALMarch 10, 1981

The meeting was ~alled to order at.7:35 p.m. in room 202 of the Center forContinui"rig Education by the chairman, Prof. Robert Vacca. .Mr. James Neal ledthe senate in a prayer. The minutes of The Journals for January 22 andFebruary 9, 1981 were ~pproved.

In the chairman's report, Vacca noted that copies of the resolution passed atthe February 9 ~eeting, had been sent to the Indiana congressional dele~ation,the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, David Stockman, and toProf. Lang Qf Yale. That resolution asks for the abandonment of the percentof-effort accounting required by Circular A-21.

Vacca reported that there had been a very good and satisfying response to thecompensation report after its mailing to the entire faculty.

Pursuant to the discussion of a report ~n faculty governance in the next decadeat the February meeting, two committees have been formed to begin the studies.One cormni·ttee will gather the history ,of faculty govel'nance at Notre Dame suchas the emergence of the Faculty Senate, Academic Council and ad hoc appointedbodies such as those associateg witt: C.Q.1J.P. and P.A.t.E., and their functioning. The other cQmmittee will compare faculty governance at Notre Dame withthat at several other universities.

Vacca reported that the returns from the survey of faculty willing to serve onuniversity councils, committees, etc. have been collated and forwarded to theappropriate deans, etc. The senate was reminded that the next meeting itshould prepare the ballot for elections to the Academic and Faculty AffairsCommittee of the Board of Trustees and to the Campus life Council. The senatealso elects faculty members to the JUdicial Review Board and to the TrafficViolations Board.

Vacca then reopened discussion on the university's policies related to endowedchairs. Neal moved that:

The senate undertake .an evaluation of the university'sendowed chair policy as a contribution to the P.'A.C.E.project.

Prof. Alexander Hahn seconded. In discussion it was said that a possiblefollow-up to evaluation was the writing of a white paper and that the projectcould extend into next academic year~ Much discussion involved the questionof requiring an active commitment to Catholicism for appointment to an endowedchai·r. Several present had not heard of such a requirement and said that thequestion had not been raised in their departments. Several found Fr. Hesburghlsstatement, as reported in the South Bend Tribune, to be shocking but knew ofno hard and fast written rule. Another subject discussed in relation to endowed

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALMarch 10, 1981"Page' 2

chairs was money. Opinion differed as to whether or not the endowed chairswere sufficiently attractive to the caliber of scholar being sought. Doubtwas expressed that the endowed chairs released funds that in .practice. went tothe salary of other facul ty. There were suggestions that other ways of us i n9future funds could be more productive. Some attempt was made to separate thequestion of how chairs are filled from the question of how funds are or shouldbe allocated. It was stated that the intent of the motion was to gather facts,leaving any evaluation to later. Vacca injected the question of who should dothis work, interview 46 departments and gather their scattered.experiences andwisdom, just members of the senate or should others be invited to join? Theredid not seem to be support for recruiting outside the senate.

As a friendly amendment the motion was divided into two parts and voted onseparately. First that the senate should determine what the university policy isand how it has been implemented. Second, that the senate should undertake anevaluation of this policy. The first part passed with only Prof. Vincent DeSantisvoting no.

On the. secon~ part of the motion two points were debated, one that the senateshould not bind itself to act until the facts were known, two that gatheringfacts i'n the absence of an objective was not an effective procedure. .

Prof. Michael Crowe moved to table the motion, James Deffenbaugh seconded. Themotion was voted to be tabled.

Volunteering to serve on the committee were Profs. Mario Borelli, Paul Conway,DeSantis, Crowe~ David Dodge, William T.~geson, and Thomas Theis.~

The senate recessed at 8:53 p.m., and resumed at 9:00 p.m.. Vacca opened discussion on sponsorship of a faculty forum as suggested by Prof. Donald Barrettina memo di's tributed earl i er.

Barrett suggested that there is no channel for faculty communication among itsmembers outside of such formal structures as the academic council and facultysenate. Many issues of importance to some or all of the faculty are not discussed in these bodies and such discussions as take place are limited to membersof the body. A model which Notre Dame might adopt is the Oxford debate.. Thesenate mi'ght organize monthly forums, select a topic for each and invite a fewfaculty speakers to give short p·resentations. Hopefully, this would stimulatefaculty discussions, but not decisions or votes. It would be vital that thesubstance of the statements be printed and distributed, perhaps in the NotreDame Reports.

Barrett moved that the senate appoint a committee to plan the development of afacul ty forum to be presented by the May meeti ng of the senate. Prof. StephenBati'11 seconded.

Conway said that his college has a forum, although on a less grand scale .. Itworks well, and suggests that if well organized a wider forum should attract manyinterested persons. The crowd would be lost in Washington Hall, but numbers arenot the objective.

THE FACULTY SENATE JOURNALMarch 10, 1981Page 3

The proposal generally received praise and constructive comment. The primaryobstacle fores~en was apathy. The main counter to apathy in the form of smallattendance was suggested to be the choice of topics and publication of theproceedings. However, Prof. Arvind Varma suggested that the preparation ofwritten documents might be cumbersome to some busy people, and publicationmight be inappropriate in the case of an impromptu remark.

The proposal passed unanimously. Barrett agreed to chair the committee~ andConway, Vacca, Hahn and .Prof. Ellen Weaver to serve on the committee.

Under old business Neal asked what the status was of the faculty children'stuiti'on benefits proposal. Prof. Vaughn McKim replied that the survey datahad been collected and punched but not yet computer analyzed.


Those absent but not excused: Col. Gail T. Bulmer, AFROTC; William M. Burke,emeritus; Charles Crutchfield, law; Philip Devenish, theology; Linda C. Ferguson,general program of liberal studies; Walter J. Gajda, electrical engineering;Abraham Goetz, mathematics; Robert G. Hayes, chemistry; .James E. Houghton,aerospace and mechanical engineering; Steven W. Hurtt, architecture; Joan Aldous,sociology; John J. Kennedy, marketing; Eugene R. Marshalek, physics; BarbaraMcGowan, American studies; Thomas V. Merluzzi, psychology; Alven M. Neiman, COREcourses; Charles Parnell, modern and classical languages; J. Eric Smithburn,law, Edward Trubac, finance and business economics; Norman Crowe, architecture.

Respectfully submitted.


University of Notre DameThe faculty Senate

THE JOURNALMay 4, 1981

The May meeting--held in Room 202 of the Center for Continuing Education--wascalled to order at 7:05 o'clock by Chairman Robert Vacca, who began this finalSenate session of th~ academic year 1980-81 with a prayer.

The initial order of business was to approve the minutes of previous meetingof March 10; this was accomplished with dispatch. Vacca then welcomed thenewly elected senators to the Faculty Senate. He encouraged each to sign upfor committee participation and to become immediately involved in the senate'sUniversity-wide activities. Since senate elections were still in progress inthe Law School and in the College of Engineering, no new representati'ves werepresent from these academic units. "

The Treasurer's report revealed that the senate will be overcommitted on itsallotted $2,000 budget for the current academic year due to the rising costsof computer charges, e.C.E. rental, and mailing costs. By consensus, thesenate recommended that the chai"rman request a budget lncrease for the academicyear 1981-82.

The Chairman next commented briefly on the results of elections conducted bythe senate. Prof. William E?lgan was elected to the Traffic Violations ReviewBoard. Twelve faculty nominees were chosen for the Judicial Review Board.In accordance with the procedures outlined in du Lac, six will be chosen bythe Student Government. A second list of eight faculty nominees was chosenfor the Campus Life Council. The Student Government will select one person'and an alternate from this list. In addition, the chairman of the senate'sStudent Affairs Committee will serve ex officio. Several senators objectedto the idea of student selection of CLC faculty representatives. The chairmanreplied that the format will change next year. After correspondence with DeanRoemer, it was agreed that the senate would henceforth designate its StudentAffairs chairman and one other person as faculty representatives. The chairman also announced that the new members of the Academic and Faculty AffairsCommittee of the Board of Trustees would be Walter Nicgorski (General Program),Daniel Win;-cur (Chemtstry) and Stanley Hauen'1as (Theology).

At the December meeting, the senate debated at length and finally approved aresolution on grade changes which was recently submitted for ratification tothe Academic Council. The Council acted upon this resolution, changing onlythe final sentence, and hereafter, this Resolution becomes part of the University's Academic Code. Here are the two versions of the resolution.

FACULTY SENATE JOURNAL~1ay 4, 1981Page 2

Faculty Senate Resolution

Original Version

No one but the instructor in charge of a course can give agrade in that course or change a grade given, except underthe mas t extraordinary ci rcums tances . In extraordi narycircumstances, a qrade may be changed by the Dean with theapproval in writing of the Chairman and the Provost. Theinstructor giving the grade must be notified immediatelyin writing of the change and the reasons for it. .

Academic Council Version

No one but the instructor in charge of a course can give agrade in that course or change a grade given, except underthe most extraordinary circumstances. In extraordinarycircumstances, a grade may be changed by the Dean with theapproval in writing of the Chairman. The instructor givingthe grade and the Provost must be notified immediately inwriting of the change and the reasons for it~

Before electing the senate officers for the upcoming year, Vacca gave in precisform the activities of the senate under his aegis. .

Last year at this time Ken Goodpaster delivered a state of the senateaddress summarizing the work of the senate and outlining what lay before it. I wish to continue the practice, and begi'n by calling toyour attention the tasks of the senate as they are set forth in theAcademic Manual:

The range of concern of the Faculty Senate extends to mattersaffecting the Faculty as a whole. The Senate seeks to formulate faculty opinion and for this purpose may, at its discretton, conduct Faculty meetings and referenda. The Senatealso receives from other groups in the· University items requiring consideration by the Faculty. With respect to mattersof academi c concern, ,the recommendati·ons of the Senate arereferred to the Executi ve Corom; ttee of the Acade'rnic Counci 1,which shall place the recommendations on the agenda of theCouncil.

One of the principal elements in the formulation of faculty opinionis a sense of initiative in the senate and a readiness to undertakethe research required for informed proposals. The context for initiative seems to me all-important, and I believe that that contextwas admi rab1y expl ai ned by Professor James Danehy in a 1etter he wroteto the senate in April of 1976.

FACULTY SENATE JOURNAL'May 4, 1981Page 3

The Faculty Senate (FS), only nine years old~ is a log" caloutcome of the evolutionary process which started 134 : earsago when NO was founded. In 1842 NO was one French pr estand seven lay brothers. Ayear later it was an institttion(in name only) chartered by the State of Indiana. Fordecades it grew as a school, owned and operated by a religious community which found it necessary to employ lay persons for professional and staff purposes. The ratio oflay faculty to clergy increased, but a clear line of demarcation between mutually respected functions persisted. Theexpertise of the teachers and their independence in the classroom was both respected and appreciated. But policy--fiscal,academic, and disciplinary--was unambiguously reserved forthe administration. Somewhere along the line an AcademicCouncil was introduced~ but its composition is predominantlyadministrative and ex officio and, until recently, itsactions were largelY-rubber stamps of executive decisionsalready formulated."

But the University has not just grown, it has matured,and the faculty has gradually realized its coresponsibilitywith the administration for all aspects of the life of theUniversity. The establishment of the FS signaled the effective transition from the old,autocratic for.m to the presentparticipatory one. There now exists a vehicle for the inputof faculty opinion into the decision-making process.

To say that the faculty has a shared responsibility with the administration for all aspects of the life of the university is to make astatement that must be interpreted in several senses. In one senseit is a principle and an ideal, requiring of the senate leadershipin a broad range of concerns and a constant sense of the good of theuniversity. The senate is not an adversarial advocacy group making

;demands, nor does it simply react to decisions made elsewhere inestablishing its agenda.

Our record in recent years has been good, and our plans are promising.Our recent report of faculty compensation was well researched andcooperative in tone, and -received by the Provost in ,that spirit.Our study of the faculty children's tuition benefit, now coming tocompletion, will feature detailed projections of the use of the benefit to the year 2000, analysis of faculty opinion on several optionsfor modification, and analysis of financial feasability. We are undertaking a study of the role of the faculty in university governanceas a contribution to PACE, and a study of how the growing number ofendowed chairs might best be used for the benefit of the universityas a whole* These reports will have to meet exacting standards ofpreparationG

FACULTY SENATE JOURNALMay 4, 19R1Page 4

I rec lmmend to the senate that our three standing committees, onFaculi,y Affairs, Administration, and Student Affairs, take on a veryactivt role next year in developing these and other agenda, and Iadvisf each chairman to form subcormnittees promptly" Some problemsdid er:erge this year over senate efforts to collect data, and theymay rt cur, for the 1ines of access are not clear. But the senatemust te ready to pursue vigorously the' information it needs to do itswork ~ iell . .

In addition to research arld initiative, a second component of the formulation of faculty opinion is contact with the faculty itself, bothto ensure the representative character of senate proposals and tostimulate greater faculty interest in matters before the university.The heart of the problem in this sector is an attitude still far toocommon among many of the faculty that it ;s no use trying to get involved tn matters of university policy and decision.

For--and I refer back to Prof. Danehy's statement--it is not true thatthe principle of shared responsibility is also the fact of sharedresponsibility, and one factor is apathy or defeatism on the part ofthe faculty itself. In part this is a legacy of the pa$t. Some havememories all too keen of the days when policy was unambiguously re-served for, the administration. Nor is the Notre Dame faculty uninfluencedby a general trend to draw away from faculty involvement in governance.I would like to share with you remarks on that sCQre by Dr. Corwin King,published in the Chronicle of Higher Education (11/19/79). Much ofwhat he says we could well take as a challenge to ourselves.

Part of the cause for the decline ;n faculty influence isthe faculty itself, which is frequently characterized bytndifference and timidity. At many institutions" participation in facul ty government is often an acti vi ty that manyregard more as an obligation than a privilege.

As anyone who has ever been on a faculty committee knows,it is often difficult to get people to serve in facultygovernment. Seemingly, many faculty members want to haveit both ways~ They want to avoid participating in facultygovernment, but they want to have the option of participationavatlable. They fail to recognize a fundamental principleof political power: ,Powers that are not used t~nd to diminish!,and eventually they are taken over by others.

When faculties do participate, moreover, it is usuallyto promote their own special interests, in accordance withHazard Adams's third principle of academic polity (in TheAcademic Tribes): The fundamental allegiance of the facultymember will be to the smallest unit to which he or .she belongs.This is not surprising, given the (real or imagined) fight forsurvival of many departments, and it could reasonably be arguedthat one of the purposes of faculty government is to providea forum for differing faculty interests. The problem occurswhen faculties are unwilling to go beyond their differences

FACULTY SENATE JOURNALMay 4, 1981Page 5

to focus on mutual interests and mutual action, supportingthe ominous assumption that much of the work of facultygovernment could better be handled by non-faculty people-administrators, legi'slators~ state and federal bureaucrats-who are presumably more objective.

Finally, there is the reluctance of faculty government toconfront some current institutional realities. Program evaluation and review is a good case in point; faculty layoffs isanother. On these matters, many faculties have been notoriously slow to initiate policies. No doubt ,partisanpoliticking plays a role here, but a more significant factor,it appears, is the feel ;n9 of some faculty members that theseare not faculty responsibilities. "Those are administrativeprob1ems, II goes the cl aim.

I suggest that faculties will get only as much power asthey are willing to insist on. If they sit back waiting forpower to come to them, if they abdicate power to othersthrough indifference, internal squabbl ing, and hesitancy toface touchy iss ues, they can probably antici pate p1ayi ng aprogressively smaller and less meaninqful role in institu-ti ana1 government. -.

later tonight Prof. Barrett will describe one measure we will beundertaking to strengthen the faculty voice, and that is the FacultyForum. These meetings will be no-holds-barred explorations ofimportant topics like the Catholic Character of the University, theplace of the humanities in Notre Dame education, deployment of endowment funds, and so on. Digests will be circulated to all thefaculty; specific courses of action may emerge from them.

I also recommend to the Senate that at an appropriate time we renewthe Faculty Attitude Survey of two years ago. That survey was animportant line of communication with the faculty, and ensured thatthe Senate's voice was heard attentively by the administration andtrustees. Inasmuch as faculty discussion of a draft version of PACEis not contemplated, the next best thing might be a survey in responseto the PACE recommendations.

Ftnal1y, when the task of'formulating faculty opini'on has been finishedi'n the ways outlined above, it is our responsibili'ty to translate opinion into action. Here too Professor Oanehy's principle of sharedresponsib'il ity has yet, to become a description of fact, for there isroom for improvement on the administrative side in its responsivenessto faculty proposals and its readiness to delegate authority to thefacul ty.

As Professor Dal1mayr remarked to the Senate on an earlier occasion,a strong faculty must not tolerate a passive role in governance,-andthe faculty must be consulted as a matter of course in the making ofpo1icy, not merely at the di screti on of the admints tration. The

FACULTY SENATE JOURNALMay 4, 1981Page'6

Manual states, liThe Senate also receives from other groups ;n theUniversity items requiring consideration by the faculty.1I As youknow, this does not happen. I recommend to the Senate, however,that we act to invigorate the principle. One specific course ofaction would be to seek power for the Senate to name members toappropriate University Committees whether they are ad hoc like thePACE committee or statutory like the Faculty Board in Control ofAthletics or the Budget Priorities Corrmittee.

We have also got a clear responsibility to take all appropriate measures to ensure that our white paper reports (Compensation, EndowedChairs, Governance, etc.) are met with a response commensurate withthe effort we put into them. We may consider using the AcademicCouncil for this purpose, for we have a right of agenda with thatbody. The Council meets infrequently~ but that need not be the case,for its rules require it to meet when ten members request that itdo so.

The ideal of shared responsibility will require trust and effort onthe part of both faculty and administration. But much progress hasbeen made already, and I believe we can remain confident that collegiality is the direction the university w·ill hold to. The Senate1stask is to assist this growth through vigorous and persuasive representation of the interests of the faculty.

Various Committee Chairmen were next called upon to bring the senate up-to-dateon major lIwhite paper ll reports currently in progress.

Report on Faculty Children 1 s Tuition Benefits--McKim

Professor McKim presented a preliminary report on the results of the FacultySurvey on Tuition Benefits for Faculty children conducted earlier in the semester. Full-time members of both the Teaching and Research Faculty and the variousSpecial Faculties were polled. The overall return rate was 75%, and the returnsrepresented high proportions of all faculty constituencies and age levels.The survey was comprised of two parts: one solicited opinipn about variousfeatures of tui t ion benefi t programs, the other sought i nformati on about thenumber, ages and college intent of faculty children.

The opinion survey highlighted the fact that nearly 80% of faculty respondentsfavored an increase in the present $1000 per year tuition benefit for childrenattending schools other than Notre Dame. A large majority of respondents agreedthat the present work requirement for faculty children receiving free tuitionat Notre Dame was a reasonable one. Strong interest was.expressed in the ideaof a tuition aid plan for chtldren who pursue vocationally oriented educationrather than college.


The survey revealed that the number of faculty children reaching "college agein the next twenty years will decline sharply (to about 50% of present numbersby the year 2000). Faculty members reporting children not yet of college ageindicated the following preferences of college for their children: NotreDame/St. Mary's - 54%, some other college - 46%. Of those children whomfaculty members would prefer to send to some school other. than Notre Dame,i"t was indicated that as many as 41% would likely attend Notre Dame becauseof the high cost of sending children elsewhere.

r~cKtm noted that a detai 1ed report of the survey findings woul d be presentedto the Senate in the fall along w;·th a number of speci"fi"c recommendation basedon the study.

Report on the Senate~s Study of FacultyGovernance--Francts-Conway

This study is divided into two major areas. Michael Francis heads a committeeto study facul ty i nvo1vement in un; vers i ty governance among our peer insti tu""tions across the country. Francis and his commtttee wi'11 make its report tothe senate in an early fall meeting. Paul Conway and his committee will studythe history of faculty involvement tn university governance at Notre Dame.His committee has scheduled a series of summer meetings and will report t·tscone1us ions and recorranenda t;-ons to the senate th i" s fa 11 s.

The Barrett Memorandum

The next i'tem on the May agenda was Professor Barrett ··s Memorandum, re to havea Faculty Forum. His Memorandum outlines the form, substance, and procedures.such a project could follow. The consensus of the Senate was enthusiastic toward trying out this type of a University Faculty Forum and the project willbe referred to the appropriate committee for 1981 ...82 tmplementation.

, 'FACULTY SENATE JOURNAL May 4, 1981 - Page 8

TO: The Faculty Senate MEMORANDUM 5/4/81

FROM: Committee on the Facu"lty Forum: R. Vacca~ P. Conway, A. Hahn, E. Heaver,D. Barrett

RE: Implementation plans for the decision made in our last meeting to have aFaculty Forum

1. What is the Faculty Forum? It is a) a monthly meeting (3 per semester), b) organized by the Faculty Senate~ c) to which all· interested Faculty areinvited to participate, d) in discussing a major issue affecting Facu'ltyand university, and 3) the ideas of the discussions are communication toall segments of the university. If the Forum meets a need, it will becontinued after 1981-82.

2. What are the purposes of the Faculty Forum? The Forum is intended to provide anopen and frequent occasion for Faculty to express their considered judgments on important issues. It is thus not necessary to wait for electionto a uni'versity/col1ege council, or to be appointed to a committee byadministration. The Ac~demic Council meets relatively infrequently andusually has a majority of administrators as members; college councils areoften limited in agenda and decision.

3. What is the general format of the Faculty Forum? A Faculty Senate Con~ittee invites proposals from Senate members and from all Faculty for discussiontopics. The committee selects the topics, invites volunteer speakers(3 to 5). Such main speakers are given up to 15 minutes each to supporta position on the issue; all other interested Faculty are given up to 5minutes each at the meeting. Each monthly meeting is recorded; summariesof each speaker's presentation are made (by the speaker or certainly withhis approval of text); the summaries are duplicated and distributed quicklyto all Faculty and segments of the university.

4. When and where will the Faculty Forum take place? A place such as the Library---- Lounge can be reserved for the meetings. The meetings will be scheduled

for the end of September, the end of October, the end of November. Illustratively, the meetings can take place on a Thursday or Friday--from noonto 2:00 p.m. All Faculty are invited. Those attending can bring theirlunches (llbrown bag"). At mid-day it is felt more Faculty will attend andparticipate in the Faculty Forum.

5. What are some proposed topics for the Faculty Forum? The present Committee proposes specifically that the first topic be:a) the Catholic character of Notre Dame?Already there are a number of informal Faculty groups discussing this topic.We feel this topic will draw much attention from Faculty as well as administration and students (as well as alumni, parents,. etc.). Other topicswhich may be worth considering:b) the relative value of endowed chairs?c) the student evaluation system of instructors?d) the place/functions of sports at Notre Dame?e) effectiveness of Faculty participation in university governance?f) the requirements for excellence at Notre Dame?

6. What the Faculty Forum ~ not:a) it does not vote on the issues discussed;b) it is not designed to be purely negative in criticisms, but

positive and constructive;c) it is not a representative expression of Faculty opinion; rather it

taps the expertise of interested Faculty;d) it is not progr-ammed to coerce a given solution to issues; rather, it

provides full publicity and discussion on issues which present foragiven little opportunity for substantive and general Faculty contributions.

, ' -


The next item of business was the election of senate officers. The ExecutiveCommittee had prepared a preliminary list of candidates to present to thesenate but emphasized strongly that senators nominate additional candidatesfor all slated openings. Several nominations were made "from the floor ll

; thesuccessful candidates to chair the senate and its major committees for 1981-82are:

Chairman - Robert VaccaVice Chairman - Vaughn McKimTreasurer - F. Ell en Weaver'Secretary - Mario Borelli and Phillip Helman (joint appointment) ,Faculty Affairs - J. Robert WegsAdministration - Paul ConwayStudent Affairs - Alex ~ahn

Following the elections, Vacca thanked the outgoing officers and committeemembers for their cooperation during the year and encouraged all senatorspresent to sign up for committee assignments for the ensuing year. This accomplished, the chairman announced that Committee assignments will be forthcami'ng before September.

A lively discussion took place when the question was raised, re faculty participation in the selecti'on process of a successor to Fr. Hesburgh. The animatedconversation among many senators circled two issues. First, they wished forfaculty participation in the selection process for a new president; second,they wished to participate i'n any new administrative structural change, i.e.,the establishment of the office of a chancellor.

The conclusion of this discussion resulted in the senate passing a resolutionrequesting of its chairman that he make known to the Trustees and to the Administration the desire of the Faculty Senate to participate in the upcoming majorUniversity governance change.

In accordance with Article I, Section 2 of the Academic Manual,the Faculty Senate requests that the Board of Trusteesconsult with the Senate in the selection of a 'new presidentwhen that selection occurs, and that the Senate be consultedin any major changes 'in the structure of the office of theUn; vers ity.

With no further old or new business to finalize, Vacca wished the senators amost pleasant surrmer and invited all to participate in the traditional wine,cheese, and crackers "meeting" that always concludes the Faculty Senate'slast yearly meeting.

Those absent but not excused: Rudolph Bottei, chemistry; Col. Gail T. Bulmer,AFROTC; Dino Cervigni, modern/classical languages; Walter Gajda, elec. engr.;Robert Hayes, chemistry; James Houghton, aero/mech. engr.; Eugene Marshalek,physics, C. William Tageson, psychology; J. Eric Smithburn, law.

William M. Burke(Temporary Secretary)

THE JOURNAL - Faculty Senate // University of Notre … assured the senate that the issue of annual...

Documents

Transcript of THE JOURNAL - Faculty Senate // University of Notre … assured the senate that the issue of annual...