My watch says that it's three o'clock. In fact, by the time you're back there, it's 3.0.3. So why don't we go ahead and get started and I thank you for coming today. I appreciate your presence here and a couple of things that that we're going to spend most of our time today talking about Article three. And then I have some other announcements. But it occurred to me as I was preparing for this meeting that this was really the last time that I get to address the general faculty, a general faculty meeting. And so I thought that I would take ten minutes, that you would do me the courtesy aloud, allowing me to have ten minutes right at the beginning. Really do a retrospective, if you will, and to focus on the last nine months and what we've accomplished. And, and I want to start and then we'll move into Article Three. Spend the bulk of our time on that, and then maybe the last five minutes with some announcements that I think you'll be interested in as well. And so all of you know what our mission is and that's to inspire and transform our students. And I've been really proud over the last nine months or so to be part of the many events that have happened during this past year. And of course, none of that happens without the rest of the institution that supports it. And this goes all the way from the folks who maintain our grounds, to the people who are serving in dining halls, to the people in life, to our staff and the registrar's office, to the finance people, to the communications people, to those charged with maintaining campus safety, and of course, to the faculty and to the administrators. And, you know, I was thinking about in a world that seems really so focused on all the things that terrorists apart. This last year we've spent a lot of time working together and focused on what we can achieve together. And I think you'll recall that my broad goals in accepting this transition position where to celebrate and enhance relationships that are both internal and external to the university. There our relationships in order to strategically maintain the forward momentum of this university during a time of transition. Transitions can be really challenging. But I think that together we've really made good on the goals that I'd had for this past year. And we focused on our mission. Our missions are our students and our faculty, and all of us really who support the mission of the university. And we've celebrated a lot of openings over this past year. Jp Morgan Chase innovation center that Rodney dining complex speech pathology, nano fab. We have other ones that are on the horizon and coming up. We also celebrated cop line bling. Has everybody here, I hope you've all seen that video out. That was a really creative way to focus on student safety and to get the students to go to the students and get them to pay attention and to go on their platforms and get them to pay attention. And it did go viral. There have been more than a million hits and more than 5 million views that a lot of media coverage. But more importantly than that, there had been more than 500 downloads of the lives safe app. And the there's a big uptick in the following of the UD Police Department on social media to take up more than 4 thousand followers. So now I'm trying to think of some viral video I can do to get that many followers. But that was the real value of that really creative effort and the real outcome. And of course, it was all done with volunteer effort and time. >> Spire are UD Police Department >> We've also worked a lot to build excellence and I used a building here, but it's both buildings and programs that we've been trying to build. This one happens to focus on the freshmen neighborhood that were first year neighborhood that we're trying to build, bringing the students. And so it's a busy or area, it's a safer area. And they can build cohorts among themselves. But we also know our programs are increasingly being recognized for excellence too. And the recent US News and World Report certainly had a Celebrating for our colleagues in physical therapy. They were tied for number one in the country. Can me still in the top ten? And in aggregate, they rank the University of Delaware number 29 among public universities and 75th and overall universities. And all that's cause for us to celebrate. And it's all thanks to you. It's thanks to our students, it's thanks to everyone that's supporting this mission. Cio magazine puts the MBA, MBA program and the top tier. And of course, Princeton Review and parents care about this one. Princeton Review included us in colleges that quote, pay you back. So it's worth coming here to get your degree. And of course, we also work to differentiate ourselves and a lot of different ways to position our institution a really competitive marketplace. So we've seen things like Delaware in DC, our world Scholars program. Starting in the upcoming fall, there'll be the Innovation Fellows program. And many of these are cross university initiatives that are happening. The one in DC focused a lot on policy initiatives and students interested in that arena. But the world scholars on enhancing our humanities pool of applicants and of course, the innovation fellows working across all of the colleges to raise up entrepreneurship as an innovation, as something that's important to us. One, the Paul Simon comprehensive international internationalization award. And of course, I got to have the honor of going to receive that award on behalf of the university, but it really is thanks to Ali, efforts of the folks in the Institute for Global Studies, especially Nancy Guarana and Amy fully, who worked really hard to put that application together. >> And of course, our study abroad programs, which are pictured here. >> We have a 110 of them in 39 countries. And many of you lead those programs as we go abroad this past year, up to 1700 of our UD students have participated in this academic year. And that also enhances the experiences that our students have a lot this year. We're also moving ahead on a number of cross campus initiatives that's part of maintaining the forward momentum. So we've had some initiatives where we've been talking about how we can elevate the social sciences and the humanities. Here at the university, we've been trying to better integrate entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem across the university. And of course, thinking about how we can build out the star campus. I've also been busy working with the legislators, trying to build understanding with them so that they know what we do and appreciate it. More importantly, appreciate it And try to continue to improve our relationships with them. And one of the ways that I found that we really can connect with them is when we talk to them about the 250 thousand hours annually that our faculty and students do in public service. Much of it is in Delaware, but it's also nationally and internationally. And I think that that making a difference, giving back in that way and having that kind of a difference. Impact is what we're all about at the University of Delaware. And I am particularly proud of that and have found that when we talk about this initiative for engagement that was started and that Dan let rich and net over. B will co-direct. I think we can be really proud of what we do out in the communities. I think we should be. >> And I think that resonated with the state legislature. >> And then in addition to all those wonderful things, we've also face some issues. And I always put the, this is my favorite slide to think about how we've come together as a community around issues of diversity tried to galvanize, and that's diversity in its broadest sense, but really galvanized as a community to come together to formulate an action plan with some measurable outcomes. How we work together around Title Nine and formulated and implemented some new policies and procedures better ensure that everyone who was involved gets a fair shake and around alcohol and drug issues. And where we instituted new kinds of programming. The robot now and Perkins live have, we've done some reviews of those programs. Student life has, and there are amazing metrics that indicate that they'd been tremendously successful programs. So those will be institutionalized. And of course, we've got a lot of work going on in, in all of these areas. And in addition to all of that, we've had a lot of leadership changes that the institution to in athletics in the EBP is office in communications and public affairs. And on and on and on. I always joke that there's going to be a little I club, the inter whims, a little club which I would belong to as well. The idea is that it's been a very busy and productive nine months. I've enjoyed absolutely every single moment of it. And there are still two more months to go. We still have lots of things that we can do together in those two months. And that my retrospective. So I just wanted the opportunity to sum up for you some of the ways that I think we've come together as a community and worked to move the University forward doing what could be a challenging time. And now we get to talk about another challenge, and that is going to be Article three. And I want to give you the, oh, you know what? This is the slide that I did want to say. We, we all are here because of the students and we never want to forget that. So I always like to end with a slide that sort of shows us in different capacities that we have, whether it's in the classroom or encouraging our students while they engage in other kinds of activities. But now really we will focus on Article three and that will take up the rest of our time. And I really did only go ten minutes on that retrospective. So let me just make sure that everybody's here sort of knows the genesis of how we got to this. So there was a retreat last October, October 2015 by the University of Delaware is board of trustees And they had an individual from the AGB, the association of governing boards there. And that person facilitated a discussion for our board about board responsibilities and best governance practices. And after that meeting, the Faculty Senate and particularly the leadership will remember I came to faculty senate and I report it out that I thought that we would be I would be charged as an interim president with something around Article three because the, the way the wording is in Article Three, it's very vague on some issues and that the board there was a lot of discussion around the fact that they wanted to solidify or make out wording a little bit more defined. And so sure enough, at the December meeting of the board, I was able to come forward and report that the trustees did come forward with a charge for me. Okay. And really, they asked me to review article Three. Article Three of the university bylaws. It's the trustees by laws, but they govern the university. And Article Three defines the roles and responsibilities. You see that they are in bold, faculty and UD administration. And they were concerned if you look down below, you'll see they were concerned about a couple of things. The definition of the faculty was really broad. I mean, it included everybody practically that works here at the University. At least it felt that way and they didn't really think that that was reasonable or logical. So what we look at that they were also concerned about, they thought that there had been an evolution in what the responsibilities and roles of the faculty were. And on another note on the definition of what the provost role was here at the University of Delaware. So they asked us to look at that. And then really this whole accountability thing about what is the connection between when I as a board member, asked you to do something, I can't. I want to know somebody is going to be accountable for seeing that it gets fulfilled. So who was that person? And so having that kind of a discussion. So what I did is I put together an advisory committee and that committee has me as chair and then it's got some administrators, but it's got preside Gerardi, your faculty senate president elect. It's got Kelvin Keeler, AAUP precedent, and then a number of other faculty members. And it's got guild sparks, who is the past Chair, immediate past chair of our board of trustees. And Gil has been very helpful for the committee as we'd been meeting and sort of helping us understand what the board is trying to get at. So on the one hand, we have the board asking for some information. And then what we need to do is get to some common ground recommendations that we make. That said, I will say and I have been reminded that the board amends its own bylaws. All we can do all I can do all you can do is is make recommendations. To try to help them get to the goals and help them shape it the way that we think will best help with shared governance at the university. One other point that I wanted to make is there is a hierarchy of documents that the university starts out with the charter that's over everything. The next level or the university bylaws, The Board of Trustee bylaws. Okay. And then under that, I would guess as the faculty constitution and then the faculty senate bylaws and the handbook sit somewhere in here and I'm not exactly sure where that in, so maybe some of you can help me with that all right. Before I open it up for questions, because I know it help the committee so much. I'm going to ask Gill sparks if he would come up and give you the perspective from the board. What is, why is the board asking for this? What are they trying to achieve? What are they worried about? And then maybe that can help inform our discussion as we're going forward. So with that guild, and then we'll open it up for questions after that. >> So but I'll sort of explain what the board's concerns are and why we're asking that they be addressed now rather than at some other time. And then when I'm done, I understand. And so you'll get back up. There's a few more slides and then we'll open it up for questions or concerns that you all might have. But let me start by saying this is a fluid process right now. The group that had Nancy has put together has met. Unfortunately, we meet at eight o'clock in the morning. They're memorable time to start work. And we've come up with a draft. But that draft is very much still in a development stage. And as we go on, I learned things about sort of subordinate documents like the, like the constitution of the faculty that frankly had never even surface to the board level in the 13 years that I've been a trustee. So we all learn stuff. Nobody's trying to trample on the Constitution or anything like that. We're just trying to make sure that there's a system from top to bottom that ensures that we will have that everybody will understand what the concept of shared governance means, which the board is committed to. So just to give you a sense of the, of this hierarchy, while the University's charter, which is actually found in the Delaware code, vest in the board, the entire control and management of the affairs of the university. It also vests in the faculty, the care, control, government, and instruction of the student's subject. However, to the university's bylaws and the university's bylaws under the charter, under the sole control of the board. So when one looks at Article three of those bylaws for a definition of what shared governance means. Here at the university. It's clear that those provisions were drafted in a simpler age when the university was what smaller do not correspond to the practice either here or anywhere else that we could discover and provide a little guidance or comfort to the Board in its oversight role as to who it should be relying upon with respect to academic matters. Exactly. Body, what people. So some examples, there's literally no definition of the Provost role. >> The provost is defined as the chief academic officer. >> There's no definition of what that means. And it says that the Provost does what the President asks him or her to do. So like the vice president of the United States. Nobody really knows what the Vice President of the United States does. And unfortunately, I don't think anybody here, you'd probably get a 150 different views of what the Provost does or ought to be doing here. We ought to be able to do better than that. There's no recognition whatsoever of the Faculty Senate or its appropriate role in the scheme of things. Yet for 13 years, we hear from and respect and interact with the faculty Senate. And in an era where universities, including the University have sophisticated operations in terms of student life, admissions, athletics, et cetera, operations run by skilled professors, professionals, and subject to ever increasing amounts of external regulation. If you read the language in these bylaws literally, it could suggest that these functions are instead the actual responsibility the faculty as distinguished from being having the faculty be in an appropriate advisory role. And a top off, all of that. There's a definition of the faculty to include all sorts of positions that no one today would consider to be faculty, including even some positions that don't even exist anymore at the university. So the board, having looked at that, has asked that in this period of transition, where in theory we ought to be able to address these matters an emotionally and objectively solely in terms of the best interests of the university. That an attempt BY made to rot, to reach a consensus that will take us forward more comfortably into the 21st century. And we have specifically asked the interim president, who has, by definition of her eardrums, that has no ongoing personal interest in this matter to coordinate the project. From the board's perspective, what we want is to see healthy and well-defined shared governance so we can avoid having to get involved in jurisdictional squabbles and to restrict our role in the curricular area and in the instructional area to matters of high level oversight, confident that the academic operation is running smoothly below in an organized fashion. And we also want there to be a serious effort to define the role of the Provost. We don't come in with any preconceptions of exactly how that ought to be defined. But we do feel that our ability to attract qualified people to fill that position over the years is, is hampered by not being able to tell people exactly what that position entails. We believe that by not defining the role of the provost more specifically than we do now that the President as frequently had to step in and over-involved himself or herself in in the minutiae of academic Affairs often at the price of being able to do other things like go out and raise money for the university. And we don't really know who to hold responsible when, when some obvious project comes up and it's delegate it to someone, a, we get no help from the bylaws with respect to that. So this is a process. The timing of bringing it forward now is frankly because we're in an interim situation and it would be an appropriate time to try to do this and accomplish this if we can. And from the perspective of the board, we're going to be open to all reasonable suggestions as as we try to bring this project to a conclusion in the next couple of months. So with that, I'm going to turn it back to Nancy and I will hang around here for the question part of education, they're irony. >> The only, the only comment that I would make is that although I don't have a personal interest or an agenda in all of this. I do have a deep and abiding affection for this institution. And I also believe in shared governance. And I would really like to see us be able to, and for that reason, we'd like to see us be able to resolve this as we go forward. So just to make sure everybody's on the same page that discussion points really are bound to issues around the faculty, faculty responsibilities and faculty definition, as Gill mentioned, and around a definition for what the Provost does. And and then the committee also focused on that section 3.5 that had to do with the chairs of departments. And I guess I have here are just two slides and then we'll open it up. So define who's a member, the voting faculty. Should we codify Faculty Senate or maybe governance? Maybe you'll leave the Senate issue in the constitution. And maybe you just put some reference to governance in the, in the, the university bylaws. That's that's certainly as an open how to maintain and update the faculty handbook. That's been how that should be a shared process, and then responsibilities and privileges. And Gil alluded to that. And then the last two were that to the section on the provost and then that section on shares. What we did is broaden it to include directors because we had Director of the School of Education, Director of Marine Science and Policy, as examples of academic units, broaden that definition. Add a section on duties to make it parallel with the section on Dean's that's right above it. And then we took out the length of the term. And it's not because we didn't agree with that. We just thought that shouldn't be in the bylaws. That should be covered in another document. That was just something that came up from the committee that as we're trying to think about, parodied. So with that, I think I will alum There are other announcements that will come later, but I think we'll open it now for discussion and questions. And Bob, it's hard to see people when you're here with these french fry lights. So Bob said he would, bubble, pilus said he would act as a moderator. So two microphones and we'll just raise your hand bubble. I call on you and then we'll get a mike to you so we can have it on recording. Okay. >> My name is Sheldon *******. >> I was president of the Faculty Senate three years ago. If I can make a couple of quick points. Number one, I agree there's a lot of confusion as to what the faculty what the Handbook is hadn't been mended. We would support, I think a lot of us clarifying some of the issues you're addressing. Number two, scheduling this meeting with a notice one day before spring break with the meeting schedule Monday, I think is a questionable act. Many my colleagues never read the email, are not here to attend. >> I don't imputed ill motive to that, but it was somewhat inimical to having an open discussion what the general faculty meeting with husband on the university calendar for forever. Oh, what I did is I bumped it up to give us longer time to have a discussion because I wanted to talk about Article three. So I moved it an hour back after discussion with some folks. And so there was no ulterior motive though, I promise you. >> I believe you quick point number three, I was on a search committee for our current provost, Dr. grass. So I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I'll go on a limb and tell you this. There was not a single candidate who asked to see. The bylaws are uncertain about the definition of a Provost was really not an issue in finding the provost. My main point is those of us that have been here many decades NOW that we've had very strong Provost in the pass. If we remember, Leon Campbell, Dan rich. A lot of us were unhappy with the new budgeting process because we saw that with the power of the Provost and shift out to the deans. And what we look at now in these proposals is an attempt to seize the power back for the provost by taking it away from the Faculty Senate rather than vis-a-vis the deans. Which strikes me as somewhat unfortunate given how we, the Faculty Senate was. I think all of us that served would, would recognize how weak the Senate is into further weaken it. I would be at the cost of faculty governance in any role in participation. >> Thank you. >> Okay, sheldon, thanks for your perspective. I do just want to say there is no attempt, intent, intent to weaken faculty governance in any way. What we want to get to is a checks and balances that perspective on, on shared governance. And so, you know, the devil's always in the details and how you define some of these things. But what I'm hearing from the board members is I'm hearing people say we want to know who's accountable and who we go to if we don't meet this and this goal. And so there's gotta be some accountability, but there's gotta be. Again, the faculty don't do everything through, the provost doesn't do everything. It's gotta be a shared process that we're trying to get to. So if folks can help us with language around that, Gill said it, this is not a done deal. This this is a truly a draft document. This is in the effort of being transparent about all of this, we've come to the faculty and said, please give us your feedback on how we can make it better and try to get to some of the concerns that the trustees have voiced around this. Okay. Other comments? >> Okay. Thank you. John Borgen and physics. And I first wanted to thank you, Nancy, for the way you conducted the 3.3.3 committee a few years ago on academic searches. I know you are genuinely committed to shared governance and I'd like to make a few comments. I think something that has really gotten a lot of former Senate presidents and senators and faculty upset is the formalization of a procedure which would enable a provost as to say, to veto resolutions changing the faculty handbook, even if they are approved overwhelmingly by the faculty senate. And because our provost appreciates Italian archaeology in Italian history, I'd like to point out what some of the precedents are for veto power. It goes back to the Roman Republic in the last few centuries before the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, in which tribunes of the plants, the Common people, could veto resolutions passed by the Senate, the tribune. So the pledge were elected by the people and they served one-year terms which could not be renewed. And so a veto could never last for more than a year. Now that led to some instability in the later Roman Republic. And our founding fathers of this country recognized that that was unstable. And so they provided that the President of the United States could veto legislation approved by the House and the Senate. But then there was an override procedure, two-thirds, right? And I think that something like that would make faculty more comfortable going ahead. We don't really think any Provost should be able to just veto things arbitrarily and have that Stan, right. >> So I don't like that, right? And so I actually take that point and I think that there may be some language that we could find that is sort of a hybrid language. That would say in an instance where faculty senate would, or faculty would come forward with something if the provost did veto IT, that there would have to be that that wasn't the end of it, that then there would be some other resolution process that would get too. So that preserves that checks and balances and allow some other So the devil will be in the details of figuring out what that other processes. But I think that's reasonable. I do think that's reasonable. I've to talk to the rest of the committee and and see What folks think and talk with them. Board member. But having that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. And by the way, it was the 3.3.3 committee. And you'll notice this is Article three. I'm starting to get paranoid about the number three. All right. Other a guess, please. Hi, I'm done. >> All yen in urban affairs. >> I take John's John's point, I guess Nancy that I read the draft several times and they read the comments of the former Senate presidents. >> It seems to me anyway, that that would be a very good guide through which to make the changes that you say it's a fluid system. And I could not I could not find these for me anyway to to articulate any other concerns other than those that were articulated by by the by the Senate presidents. >> I would urge you and the board and take a look at that document. Yes, we will. That the and again, what we're trying to get to is so some of what I read in that document is that we want everything to stay the same, that we don't want things to change, and that we feel we have shared governance now because, and, and, and because we, the faculty are in charge, and to me that's not shared governance. To me, you have to have shared. True shared governance is a definite, on the academic side of the house is a definition for what the role of the provost is, which is absent in our bylaws. And then relate a definition of how the provost and the faculty work together to get to resolution on issues. And so each has to have 11 probably shouldn't be able to veto the other we need but we need to be able to work together in order to get to the resolution. People have to truly feel it is shared governance. And I don't think we're there yet on, on either side of that equation. And I will say to you, there's not a day that goes by in this job that as I try to make decisions in the interest of the institution, I'm really not thinking about what it was like to be a faculty member with the faculty hat on full-time. And so I really do try to remember that role and think about that how I would be viewing it. But the idea is that you do get you are looking at things through different lenses as you become in, into administration as a president of a university, you are concerned about certain issues. So yeah, that you don't always have to think about as faculty, as the trustees, they're concerned about things that maybe we don't have to think about. And we have to appreciate those different lenses and how we can find the common ground. So everybody is satisfied in that. And I think we can do it. We did it with 3.3.3. I think we can do it with Article three. And that's that it really is the goal. So getting that kind of language. So I will, we will look at that. And I have looked at this and I already see some places where we can work with some of that. But I see somewhere maybe we're going to have to work a little more on the language, right? >> Okay, it's a very good starting place. >> And the committee has been engaged and they've been we've only had we've had a couple of meetings. It's been it's been good discussions around things and they're interested in, I believe, in getting to that positive outcome. Two. So what I would like is recommendations coming forward, which then I can take to the board and and then that the board can consider and ultimately they're going to vote whether they take our recommendations, I don't know. But if we do our jobs right, they're going to like the recommendations we come forward with. It makes their job easier. Do I see I do see somebody. Yes. I'm Amy Johnson. I'm from nursing and I'm one of the former presidents that spend Spring Break working on these documents. I do have to say I'm circa 20082009 after Dan Rich was provost. He was leaving when I was coming in. And one of the things that we've struggled with as senate leadership is the fact that we're on a slippery slope. Depending on who comes in for administration, particularly Provost, the Senate loses power. And we have seen that over and over again. Senate ARE band of Senate President started our conversation by saying whose leadership where you Senate precedent under? What was the type of leadership was their respect for what was coming from Senate. And that conversation was very telling. And I have to say, we need the voice of faculty and the transparency isn't seen across campus. We, we hear that in morale. And I think that that is why this is so stressful to so many people. Because your itinerary came behind the Senate agenda, it not to all the faculty, it was buried. And unless people open the agenda, they did not see it. >> So I ran into a pile of people that had no idea what was going on today. >> So my comment is that we need to be real clear in forward with what we're doing. >> Now. Let me let me just speak to one part of what you said. One of the things that that we want to do is legitimize at the bylaw level, the role of the faculty senate. I mean, it is it is amazing that you have a bylaw document at this day and age that makes no mention whatsoever of the Faculty Senate. And I can guarantee you that to the board. The documents that lay below the bylaws are unknown to them. I mean, it may be I suspect that that, that only 5% of the faculty have ever even read the faculty constitution. I can guarantee that probably nobody on the board has, except I now have. >> But but that's it. >> There's nothing wrong with that document. >> It's a good thing. >> It's just all needs to be tied together. An integrated. And I believe if we can accomplish this, it's going to put the Faculty Senate and the relationship between the Faculty Senate and the rest of the faculty on sounder footing, which will be to some extent a protection against the provost that you may get at some point. That you'll have something to point to to say, well, this is my role, this is your role. And that's really what we're looking for. We're trying to think ahead. We're trying to think beyond anybody who's here now and say, look, look in the future, how, how ought this work? And it's one thing we're sure of is it ought not be governed by the bylaws that we've got at the present, which I can I know we amended every other Bible under my administration. In May of 2011, we left Article three because we didn't want to do anything with Article three until we can have a conversation with the faculty and the faculty senate. That's why it's coming up. That's another reason why it's coming up. Now, in addition to the retreat that we had when we were challenged as to what, what what documents govern your faculty governance. And we all knew that the document we had was insufficient. So I don't want anybody to read anything into this. This is not a power grab. This is not this is not there's no insidious thing. There's really came from the board and it's, it's just something that we all in good practice need to get done. And I can tell you from my involvement in it, we're going to be flexible. I mean, this was an excellent suggestion. I've frankly already had some discussions with the President after I looked at the document that came from the past Senate presidents about how we can address that very problem. Your idea may be better than the one that Nancy and I talked about. And I'm sure tomorrow morning at eight o'clock we'll have some more ideas from well-intentioned people. But I want everybody to feel comfortable about this because it's it's really it's more than housekeeping. But it's not meant to be some sort of a revolution. It has meant, it has meant to get all of us on a solid footing. And very frankly, there's some of our own trustees that it'll be easier to deal with when, when, when they want to get involved deeply in questions of tenure and classroom for evaluation to be able to say, look, this is vested in the faculty, this is how it works. And, and, and, and our job is basically one of oversight, not one of sticking our neck into things that most of us don't know a lot about and that you are the experts in that's where we're headed with all of this. Thank you. >> I just want to respond one more thing to Amy. And Amy, I really want to say that there was no intend to hide the agenda for this meeting. And all. We did it through the faculty senate. This is tag to the Faculty Senate meeting. If there was no idea to put anything underneath. So we weren't completely transparent. I've tried to be as transparent as we possibly can be with this. We've shared all the documents that we have there immediately as we're developing them. It's a conversation. It's an iterative process. I don't know what I have to do to get people to understand that there is no conspiracy, at least on my part in all of this. We want to get the university to a better place into a more updated place. That's all it's intended in that. Okay, Bob, Robin, Andreas, and from linguistics and cognitive science, just two things. >> One, I think >> There has been a few points that were made that were really excellent. >> I think the tenure system across the country and the system of promotion and tenure is really changing. And I think that's making faculty across the country very nervous, which might speak to a second that I thought was it was made by Nancy, President target beautifully, which is we need to step into each other's shoes. >> And I think from a faculty perspective, you very often don't feel like the higher administration have a real understanding of what it's like to walk in your shoes as a faculty member. And so there's decisions that are very often made that have a very strong impact on our daily lives. >> Our ability to get promoted, our ability to get tenure, the shifting sands, sands of the tenure process that happened to junior faculty when they come in. >> These kinds of things are the kinds of things that are making people nervous because it gives the provost more power to make changes that are last minute changes that might make faculty have less stability in terms of their daily lives. >> That's just a comment and you may want to follow up on that. >> But the second thing I wanted to say is what I'm thinking as a member this audiences, I'm enjoying hearing the fact that it's a, it's a document that's still in progress and I appreciate the open discussion that's happening right now. >> And what I'm wondering is, what are the steps moving forward for you to be able to get more input? I mean, some faculty have expressed that they feel like this came kind of late in the game. And so not everybody has had a chance to maybe process the document and give concrete suggestions. Is there a step moving forward by which faculty can actually have a role in this. >> So that we can actually feel like maybe we can strike a document that's amenable to both sides, right? >> And so maybe that's a good point to end. So why don't we stay that will that people could I'm smiling because the person who looks at that mailbox has gotta love this state-run Mike Chalmers, you're gonna love this. We're gonna, Why don't we have the faculty will put out a message. It says, please send ideas verbiage to the president's inbox. Okay, precedent at u del.edu, we will cure, ate all of that. We'll summarize it up and get it back to the committee. The committee, we'll work through some of those things. There aren't a lot of areas where we're focused here. So my guess is we'll get input, hopefully a lot of input, there will be a lot of clustering that we can do with that input and then we can can bring it back to the committee and then move forward from there. So what would be the next step going forward? My plan would be to there is not a timeline on this. Okay. We want to get it right rather than getting it done on a particular time. So but what I was thinking is I know that the faculty, the Board of Trustees have committee meetings coming up in the middle of April. And I know that I'm on the agenda for the Academic Affairs Committee to do an update on where we are with Article three. And so I will do that update, talk about the discussion that we've had here. Talk about where the committee is in the discussion and everything. And then what I was going to do, what I planned to do still today is at the faculty senate meeting, I was going to introduce under new business the idea that we get a vote from faculty Senate on this next month. How that's only to preserve the option. If we don't feel like we're ready to do it, then we'll withdraw it from the time. But to preserve the option that could be considered if the May meeting I was going to introduce it at new business today so that that was something going forward. And so we'll just see where that goes ultimately for the board to do this. It would then go to the board's executive committee at some points. So whenever it will go to the board's executive committee and then to a ratification by the by the board as a whole. So that's the process as it moves forward. So it can move forward in a quicker period or in a longer period depending on where we are in the discussion and how how we come forward. Okay, does that and that addresses ok, yeah, yeah. >> Hi, Allen Fox from the philosophy department, and I was one of the former presidents to sign the document. >> And I think this is great that we're having this conversation. This is when the conversation should take place rather than after the decisions have already been made. But I do suggest that you look at that document prepared by the Faculty Senate presidents. >> Again, because I think your overgeneralizing whenever we say that we didn't want anything to change, no. >> I said some parts of guidance say some parts of it. Okay. Because I do think that you remember that part starts that there is a thing at the beginning it says totally unacceptable and belittling to faculty. And I mean, you know, that's, that's just kinda harsh words and that really wasn't the intent. >> What I mean, the importance of this meeting is to clarify that that wasn't the intent. >> And I think I think we all accept that at this point. I just do think that there were a lot of PR guy great suggestions for actual changes that would address the concerns of the Board of Trustees? >> Yes, I think that's right. And I think we will take that very seriously and and go through it line by line tomorrow. The committee has has taken these things very seriously, gone through information that we've gathered, and we go through it in a very serious way to try to get out again. The intent is to make it better, not make it worse, and to get a, get the whole thing it's up in, As in front of us is this idea of shared governance and being focused on that. Oh, and one, just before we come to you, Martha, I did want to say that Robin, you mentioned something and Alan, you triggered it again to about, about the idea that we should be having. These are the kinds of substantive discussions that we should be having faculty and administration together trying to figure out some of these problems instead of getting intractable and into a position on something. And then the, we should be having these kinds of discussion. This is what makes academic spawn. And in terms of moving things forward, we're having fun, right? I think so. Alright. But don't you agree, rather than in the weeds and minutiae on things, we should be having substantive discussions about things. And this feels like that to me, martha, Martha bill from human development and family studies. >> And you kind of took the words out of my mouth. >> I actually think that these are really important conversations. And the one part of your statement that I'd like to amend is I do think that it's important to have the conversations between the faculty and the administration. And I'm wondering if the board is, there could be more of these conversations, including the board, because we do get to come to your committee meetings and be a a single representative. But those aren't really good places to form relationships. And how conversations, and I think it's really important for us to be able to understand perspectives and for the work to understand Faculty Perspectives There were, you know, is, is that part of the best practices in governance where they're more sort of bored faculty venues for communication and collaboration. Maybe not, but maybe communication and understanding. Now remember the board's charge? And this was made very clear by the facilitator for the AGB. The board's charge is broadly on governance. >> Alright? >> Not the day-to-day how we execute, how we implement and stuff on that. And so with that, just with that reminder, because I'd just in case you forgot, I just thought urging that. >> I look, I agree with you. I mean, I think I think one of the things that will come out of this, and it's a two-sided coin, is the board he's going to learn because some combination of the president and me are going to report back to the board and we're going to talk about things that we've never talked about before, like the faculty constitution. And we're also going to where there's also going to be I think there's also a house cleaning aspect to all of this. So when we get our bylaws drained out, you may want to take a look at your constitution and make and do a little bit of updating on that. And then below that level, we've talked about the faculty handbook. I've never see the faculty handbook. I'm sure know trustee is that we're seeing the faculty handbook except perhaps residence of the past and perhaps Nancy, These are, these are things that maybe we, maybe we ought to know more about. Maybe you really don't want us to know more about it, but I do find this exercise wouldn't say fun, but it's sort of fun. And I also find the fact that I find the fact that I'm a board member can be here with this group to be satisfying to me and perhaps let you know that we really do care about this. We're not up there in some ivory tower. We would like, we would like, just like you would have things run smoothly here at the university. And we, and we are dedicated and I think have a decent understanding, although I think it varies among lots of people not to sit on the board, but probably amongst some of you. But we do have a basic core concept of shared governance. We know that we aren't academics, we know what we aren't. We know that the strength of the university has in its faculty and its self interest for us to just be sure that the faculty is organized in a way that, that problems get solved by the faculty whenever they can. Every now and then there's going to be some issue that comes up that is so big that it, that it impinges on issues of the, of the university's ability to pay and things like that. There's always going to be some of those things are gonna get up in the academic world to the board level. But for most of it, it ought to work without us. But thanks for your comment and it's my honor to be here. Thank you. >> So one of my more brilliant things was putting Gill on this committee because and what I realized is at the committee as we were meeting as a committee, Gil was giving us this perspective from the board that none of us really could appreciate without his insights. And that's why I thought it would be so helpful to have him here today to sort of give his perspective because again, we look at it through different lenses. So thank you very much for that, Gail. I do appreciate that. Are there any other questions at this point or Okay. And then I'm gonna go to my announcements so that we can start Faculty Senate on time. Yes. >> I'm Lauren snug and I'm in history. >> I have two points. >> The first concerns shared governance. >> We have more than enough shared governance here at the university arrived in 1970, date about same time that the university faculty senate was established. And I soon realized that that in fact is a misnomer. >> We call it the university faculty senate. >> But in fact it's the University Senate because ever since the beginning, about 20% of the voting members of the Senate are administrators. Now most of them hold faculty appointments, but the fact is that they do so in virtue of the fact that they are appointed administrators. Therefore, it is knocked at the university faculty senate and call it the faculty senate, is misleading and represents a serious misunderstanding. The second concerns the proposal to grant a veto power to the provost. The provost is it not an elected person? >> The provost has pointed to from on high, the provost is not representative of the faculty. >> And to get the provost veto power with any, without any power, the corresponding power on the part of the Senate to override it didn't anyway, is clearly lopsided in the wrong direction. >> Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much. Other comments? There's one. Back my seat. Yes. >> Steve Hastings, I'm currently chair of the undergraduate studies committee. And Nancy, I would just point out that in section 3232 of the original, so on and so on, where it just finds the responsibilities that the phaco big, the initial draft that we solve changed virtually all of those to advise, not formulate, but it buys. And I would highly recommend that we go back to the formulate language in that regard. >> The one that I'm most familiar with is regards admission policies. >> And historically, the faculty through this undergraduate studies, qubit a through the faculty senate, have set broad guidelines for admissions. And then we turn it over to the Admission Department, admission office to implement those. And I think that's the way it should happen as opposed to the faculty being relegated to advising on admission policies, that this does not sound strong enough to bend. >> Okay. Thank you. Steve. Let me just say that we didn't change all of those active verbs. We change some of them to advise. And some of it relates back to some comments that Gil made about in and now you hire people. You're hiring people who are enrollment management experts, admissions experts, that the nature of the academy has changed. The faculty still need to be advisory in many of these areas. But, but we didn't change it in areas around academics, curriculum areas that are core areas that are our faculty areas. And again, it comes back to some of the issues with accountability and the board wanting to understand. So we're happy to have language. Maybe it buys isn't quite the right word. Maybe there's some other word that would have more weight to it than, than, than, than the word advice. So certainly please send that information in. Okay? Alright. Alright, so we're going to close our questions now. I just have a couple of announcements that I wanted to make. One is that there are like four of them. The University of Delaware New website gets launched on April 12th. Alright, so watch for that. It's a very different experience. It's undid the underpinnings. The foundation of it is a lot of research that has gone into what, what are stakeholders are looking for. A number of us have had a preview. We're pretty excited about it, and so I hope that you will look forward to that. The other thing is our commencement speaker traditionally announced the day after we come back from spring break. And it's going to be Bryan Stevenson. Any of you who are here for our first year experience, who heard Bryan speak from this podium? Know what a powerful speaker he is. What an amazing individually is. Macarthur fellow TEDx talk. Look up his TED talks online and a Delaware native. And so I'm very, very excited that he has agreed to be our commencement speaker. Dennis, a sourness is coming among thoroughly. He is going to be here June sixth, little bit less than a month early. So he will be sitting in Hollywood Hall, Room 104 starting June sixth. Alright. So it'll be here a little bit early. And then last, just thank you to all of you for everything. It's been a great year. We stopped two months to go and hopefully we can continue to make progress on Article three. Thank you.
2015-2016/facsen General Meeting 20160404.mp3
From Joseph Dombroski May 06, 2020
0 plays
0
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.