March 31, 1995
Kenneth Biederman, Christine Delbeau, Alexander Doberenz, Calvin Keeler, Robert Knecht, Ajay Manrai, Ali Poorani, Henry Reynolds, Daniel Rich, Eric Rise, David P. Roselle, Melvyn Schiavelli, Carolyn Thoroughgood, D. Allan Waterfield
Senators absent:
None
Provost Andersen began by acknowledging the important contributions made by individuals in temporary teaching positions to the University. The reduction in temporary teaching positions will occur both as a budgetary issue and as a way to better meet the educational needs of the institution.
Provost Schiavelli has found in his campus visits that departments want to increase the direct return of funds from awards and grants to support replacement instructional efforts. Thus, one of the planning goals is to tie more closely the use of temporary instructors to the generation of supporting funds. Another major goal is to provide students with the best possible education (by reducing temporary teaching).
The AAUP contract specifies six conditions for the use of part-time faculty. These are: (1) when there is an open full time line with a search in progress, (2) when there is a temporary bulge in demand in a specific area, (3) as replacement for faculty on leave, (4) when there is a teaching need outside the qualifications of the full-time faculty, (5) to provide enrichment, diversity and balance in the curriculum and (6) to establish liaisons with commercial and professional organizations.
Over the last few years the hiring of permanent faculty has reduced the funds available for temporary instruction. There are institutional advantages to adding permanent faculty (in place of temporary teachers). These include research and creative activities, student advising, and department and university service; functions not ordinarily done by temporary staff. Thus, the goal is to hire permanent faculty while maintaining the flexibility for using temporary faculty. Delaware will become less reliant in temporary faculty and S-contracts and build a more stable budgetary basis for instructional needs.
The proposed changes should be considered as a shift in instructional funds from temporary teaching to a more permanent basis. A very simplified picture of the funds used for temporary instruction is that $2 million of the $6 million total is budgeted and the remaining $4 million comes from vacant lines, research buy outs and "sponge" in the instructional budget. The economic pressures in the faculty labor market are decreasing vacant positions, and hence the $4 million is decreasing. The $6 million is spent in three ways: temporary faculty lines, S-contracts and temporary teaching assistants.
The administration is attempting to stabilize the funding for temporary teaching. In the coming fiscal year some of the temporary teaching assistants are being brought into the budget. The major problem is to gain control of the unbudgeted $4 million.
The Provost's Office is working closely with Deans who in turn are working with departments to develop plans to accomplish these ends. There is not a single plan for the University, but instead flexible variations to account for specific constraints.
Some of the demand for temporary teaching will decrease in the next few years because the incoming class size was decreased by ten percent in September 1994, and this decrease will be continued for the next two or three years.
The Provost's Office is making these adjustments in consultation with academic units, the AAUP, the Faculty Senate and the Senate Executive Committee. While these discussions have generated some misunderstanding, the goal is not to eliminate temporary teaching but to maintain flexible and solid instructional efforts throughout the institution.
Associate Provost Andersen then responded to questions.
Duane Milne asked for the distribution of expenditures for temporary teaching. Dr. Andersen answered that $600,000 is for temporary TA's but did not recall the expenditures for temporary faculty and S-contracts. Tom Angell noted that at one time funds for sabbatical leaves and research buy outs were returned to the departments and that this policy has changed. He asked for an historical review of this policy. Dr. Andersen answered that during her tenure, the policy has always been that sabbatical leaves should not create additional cost to the University; either the individual on sabbatical generates a buy out or the department absorbs the additional load. She also noted that faculty have commented there is no incentive to get a buy out unless these funds are returned to the unit.
Jon Olson asked for an accounting of the teaching needs in E-110, 100-level languages and introductory biology courses. Dr. Andersen responded that the student body will decrease and tenure-track faculty freed to meet these needs. The specifics are currently in negotiation. Charles Boncelet asked why the decision to reduce the faculty was made. Dr. Andersen replied that the institution recognized that it was operating too close to saturation. Harrison Hall inquired how the balance of course offerings would be maintained. Dr. Andersen answered that these issues would be resolved by the Deans and the Provost. This concluded the question period.
3:00 P.M., Monday, March 13 in 120 Smith
4:00 P.M., Thursday, April 20 in 120 Smith
Senator Bellamy pointed out that a line was missing from the printed agenda. The on-line version had the missing material. Senator Taggart questioned the new policy informing students to advise faculty of absences before they occur. Bonnie Kime Scott, Chairperson, Committee on Student Life, replied that an instructor not wishing to be advised of illness state this in the syllabus. Senator Cooper noted that the new policy of "calling in" is good practice for professional life. Dean Murray wondered if it is reasonable for the Deans' Offices to verify illness when Student Health finds this task too hard. Dean Richards commented that she thought the proposed policy was unreasonable until she found that it is already in place from Assistant Dean Claudia Fischer. The following resolution was passed unanimously:
By action of the University faculty, the responsibility for defining attendance expectations is left to the individual faculty member, subject to the guidelines given below. Thus it is of great importance that early in each course the instructor make clear to each student what attendance expectations are, and how absences due to "relatively minor" illnesses, as described below, are to be communicated. The use of the syllabus to list attendance expectations and means of communicating about illnesses is recommended.
[Second paragraph and subparagraphs a and b remain unchanged]
c. Absences due to serious illness or death within a student's family are recognized as excused absences. To validate such absences, the student should present evidence to the Dean's Office of his or her college. The Dean's Office will then provide a letter of verification to all of the student's instructors for the term.
d. Absences due to serious illness (e.g. hospitalization, surgery, or protracted medical illness or convalescence) shall also be recognized as excused absences. To validate such absences, the student should present evidence of the illness to the Dean's office of his or her college. Supportive evidence will be provided on the student's request by the Student Health Service directly to the respective Deans.
For relatively minor, short-term illnesses (e.g. colds and flu, where attendance in class is undesirable), the University system depends upon reasonable communication between students and faculty. If possible, students should report such illnesses before the affected class, following the directions of the instructor provided at the start of the term.
[subparagraph d becomes e]
No new business was introduced.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Olson
Secretary
University Faculty Senate
JO/rg
March 31, 1995