Ad hoc September 17, 2004Ad Hoc University-Wide Governance Committee
September 17, 2004
Minutes
Present: J. Acker, R. Bangert-Drowns, B. Carlson, P. Eppard, R.
Geer,
T. Hoff, J. Pipkin, G. Singh, B. Via, J. Wyckoff
Guest: Vice President Alain Kaloyeros, CNSE
Minutes: The minutes of September 10, 2004 were approved.
Discussion with Alain Kaloyeros, Vice President and Chief Administrative
Officer
of the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE):
Vice President Kaloyeros introduced his remarks to the Committee by
addressing
the history of the CNSE Bylaws and their underlying philosophy. He
indicated
that he would defer specific questions about the bylaws to the Chair of
the CNSE
Faculty Senate.
The two principal philosophical reasons supporting the CNSE desire for
governance autonomy concern:
1. Rights and Responsibilities
2. Structural Challenges [respecting present UAlbany faculty
governance]
Faculty members of CNSE believe that faculty throughout the University
are
entitled to be treated equally and should be trusted to make governance-
related
decisions. VP Kaloyeros cited SUNY-Stony Brook as an example of a
university
allowing a measure of faculty governance autonomy consistent with the
CNSE
philosophy. He noted that in matters including curriculum and tenure and
promotion Stony Brook’s philosophy is that all faculty are equal, no
faculty
body presumes that another faculty body is not responsible, and that each
faculty body is entitled to be given the rights and responsibilities
consistent
with such trust. He opined that the Stony Brook model works effectively
and
that this model should be employed throughout SUNY if requested by
faculty.
He suggested that alternative governance models do provide superior
checks and
balances, in part because the President has ultimate authority to make
decisions
and always is at liberty to consult with others as s/he deems
appropriate. For
example, the President could request advice from the CPCA about CNSE’s
proposed
process for making tenure and promotion recommendations. Vice President
Kaloyeros indicated that CNSE would welcome having the chair of the CPCA
as an
observer at tenure and promotion committee meetings.
Vice President Kaloyeros additionally expressed the view that the faculty
within
the College should have the rights and responsibility to develop their
curriculum as they deem appropriate.
Faculty should be trusted to manage matters of this nature.
Vice President Kaloyeros elaborated about the structural challenges he
believes
confront the University Senate. He observed, for example, that the
College of
Arts and Sciences has far more representatives in the Senate than other
units at
the University. The University Senate is unlike the United States
Congress,
where the House of Representatives is proportioned based on states’
population
and the Senate allows each state to have equal representation. The
UAlbany
Senate lacks checks and balances associated with different models because
representatives from a single unit far outnumber representatives from
other
units. Smaller units cannot have their views heard or reflected as
effectively
under the UAlbany model. Allowing greater faculty autonomy in the
individual
academic units would help correct this structural problem.
VP Kaloyeros referred to examples within the University Senate and its
councils
and committees, involving issues such as approval of graduate curriculum
and
promotion and tenure, that raised procedural issues and caused delays
regarding
the conduct of business. He expressed the view that such difficulties
would not
be as apt to arise under an autonomous faculty governance structure. He
noted
that procedural and related difficulties, including the potential for
conflicts
of interest, might not be the norm for the Senate, but that such problems
do
occur and they could be avoided under a more autonomous governance model.
For
example, the new CNSE Bylaws contemplate review of tenure and promotion
cases by
six external experts, which helps ensure that conflicts of interests of
the sort
that may occur with CPCA review will not arise.
VP Kaloyeros mentioned that earlier discussions between CNSE and members
of EPC
had produced agreement that certain overarching policy issues including
misconduct in research and research involving animal and human subjects
would
reside in the unified governance structure.
VP Kaloyeros invited questions and follow-up discussion.
A Committee member questioned whether the premise that faculty are to be
trusted
can be reconciled with the decision by the CNSE faculty to form a Senate
that is
separate and apart from the rest of the University faculty. VP Kaloyeros
reiterated his view that all faculty units should have the right to
develop
their own senates, especially in light of the structural challenges
inherent in
the present University Senate. He stressed that faculty should be
entrusted
with managing themselves.
Another Committee member noted that while there is a potential for
conflicts of
interest to affect CPCA review of tenure and promotion cases, conflicts
of
interest might also arise within a school or college tenure and promotion
review
committee. The member observed that if indeed the CPCA essentially
ratifies
most or all recommendations from lower levels, it might not be highly
problematic to retain it, especially as the CPCA has potential value in
identifying and correcting rare miscarriages of justice or biased
decisions. VP
Kaloyeros responded that the central issue remained that it is important
to have
faculty exercise their rights and responsibilities without having another
body
of faculty review their cases. As an administrator, the president has
final
approval of tenure and promotion cases. If the president thinks someone
was
treated unfairly, he can and should seek assistance from CPCA. Another
question
was raised about whether eliminating University-wide faculty review of
tenure
and promotion cases would be disadvantageous because it would disrupt the
normal
alternating progression of faculty review-administrative review and allow
a
dean’s or vice president’s recommendation to go directly to the Provost
or
another administrative official without intervening faculty review. VP
Kaloyeros responded that in his view such alternating review by faculty
and
administrators did not serve a protective function and was not followed
consistently at present. For example, department chairs normally
staunchly
defend the views of faculty and in practice do not really act
independently of
faculty. In addition, the Provost provides a recommendation directly to
the
President without intervening faculty review.
Another Committee member questioned whether there should be an appeals
process
in tenure and promotion cases. VP Kaloyeros reported that faculty are
handpicked to be successful during hiring decisions. If grievances
arise, the
UUP grievance procedures are available and can and should be invoked.
When asked about the chance of success for the decentralized model, VP
Kaloyeros
reported that faculty will feel more ownership, which will increase
morale and
enthusiasm and faculty will be more willing to serve on committees. They
will
see the benefits of decentralization first-hand.
One committee member inquired about the apparent lack of student
representation
contemplated in the CNSE Bylaws on the CNSE Senate. VP Kaloyeros deferred
that
question to the Faculty Senate, although he indicated that the 75
students at
CNSE are in the process of developing a Graduate Student Organization.
He noted
that this is the first year of the CNSE Senate and expressed confidence
that the
CNSE Senate will invite student participation once the GSO is formed and
the
Chair of the Senate has a chance to take up this matter.
A Committee member referred to the SUNY Board of Trustees’ granting CNSE
autonomy with respect to the faculty governance structure and the
communication
from President Ryan recognizing that CNSE must adhere to overarching
policy. VP
Kaloyeros was asked if he had a sense of where the line is drawn between
general
policies with which all units must abide and appropriate faculty
autonomy. VP
Kaloyeros responded that the President’s reference to policies was
expressed in
a previous memorandum and included the following (taken from President
Ryan’s
April 28, 2004 memorandum):
· All University at Albany faculty must be appointed by the
President of
the University at Albany, naturally based on the recommendation of the
head of
the College;
· All sponsored research generated by the faculty must be recorded
through the University at Albany’s Research Foundation account;
· All enrollment generated by the College must be part of the
University’s overall enrollment plan and reported to SUNY System
Administration
as such.
· The budget of the College must be integrated within the
University at
Albany’s overall Campus Financial Plan. Our current system allows for
significant flexibility in budgetary decision-making. This also does not
conflict with the creation of direct revenue streams from external
sources to
meet the specific needs of individual academic units. The new College
should
participate in and benefit from the institution’s incentive-based budget
model.
A follow-up question inquired whether VP Kaloyeros had an opinion about
whether
a decision to refer all tenure and promotion cases to a faculty review
body
independent of the School or College fairly could be classified as a
“policy”
matter that appropriately could govern all units. VP Kaloyeros responded
that
the President has latitude in defining what constitutes “policy” but that
in his
view, a decision to create a mandatory third-level review would not be a
policy
decision. The President could refer cases on an individual basis for
CPCA
review, but not as a general principle.
A Committee member asked VP Kaloyeros how he thought CNSE would meld with
the
current University Senate under its proposed bylaws. VP Kaloyeros
responded that
he would encourage participation in areas that are not autonomous to CNSE
and
that he will speak to the CNSE Faculty Senate about participation on the
University Senate. As an example, he would like to see the Chair of CPCA
observe the process of CNSE tenure and promotion deliberations, and he
reiterated that coordination is important.
A Committee member asked VP Kaloyeros’ opinion about whether the
autonomous
school or the University (e.g., through CPCA) should define the
guidelines for
tenure and promotion. VP Kaloyeros indicated that the University
policies in
the Faculty Handbook have to apply and the union policies have to apply.
These
represent legal policies and overarching rules that no unit should ever
violate.
All bodies within the State are subject to State law.
An administrative question was raised, involving the process to be
followed if
CNSE proposed a new academic program. VP Kaloyeros suggested that a
proposal
would be considered within the CNSE by the faculty, who could enlist
external
experts. The Chair of the CNSE Senate would refer the proposed program
to the
Vice President, who would refer it to the University President with a
copy to
the Provost. Thereafter, the program would undergo SUNY review,
Chancellor
review, and review by the State Education Department.
A question was raised about whether VP Kaloyeros envisioned a role for
University-wide governance on issues such as conflict of interest in
research
and the Institutional Review Board (IRB). VP Kaloyeros reported that the
proposed CNSE Bylaws were reviewed by some key members of the University
Senate.
The Bylaws provide that misconduct in research and research on human and
animal
subjects will be referred to the Council for Research. He was not
concerned
about conflict of interest issues, which are guarded against by other
regulations and the State Ethics Commission, but was concerned about
perceptions
surrounding conflicts of interest.
A Committee member indicated that some people regard the autonomy of CNSE
as an
experiment in governance and asked VP Kaloyeros’s views regarding the
conditions
under which CNSE will re-examine or reconsider its new rights and
responsibilities in the future. VP Kaloyeros indicated that he feels
strongly
that CNSE wants to be an integral part of the University; CNSE is driven
by
wanting to be the best in research and teaching in science and
technology, while
at the same time having freedom to exercise certain activities consistent
with
laws of the State of New York. He further noted that Stony Brook is a
model
that already exists and works well. In any model there will be issues
and
challenges. He does envision that in the future there may be revisions
in the
Bylaws as a result of many interactive processes. In one sense,
everything can
be considered an experiment. He believes that the faculty of the CNSE
expect
that others will perceive the benefits of increased autonomy in
governance and
that such enhanced autonomy will lead to completing important business in
a more
collegial fashion.
At the conclusion of this discussion, VP Kaloyeros excused himself from
the
meeting.
Committee discussion:
Professor Acker reminded the group that the committee’s charge had
established
an October 1 deadline for submitting a report to the Senate. He reported
that
the President has offered the Senate an opportunity to contribute its
opinions
regarding the CNSE Bylaws and that the Senate leadership had indicated
that a
timely report from this Committee would be valuable with this objective
in mind.
Several Committee members expressed concern over injecting this Committee
into
the process of CNSE Bylaws development. Discussion ensued about the
committee’s
ability to meet the October 1 deadline with a comprehensive report. One
Committee member suggested presenting an oral report to the Senate or
Executive
Committee, or deferring to a later date, as a comprehensive report cannot
be
prepared in such a short time. Other Committee members expressed concern
about
providing a private oral communication, and it was suggested that at a
minimum,
providing a written bulleted list may be acceptable if a report is not
ready by
October 1. Committee members were concerned about their recommendations
being
misinterpreted or not stated completely and accurately without a written
report.
Minutes:
Professor Acker reported that pursuant to the Committee’s prior
recommendations,
all guest speakers appearing before the Committee had been invited to
review and
comment on the minutes that reflect their individual presentations to
ensure
their accuracy and completeness before the minutes are made public. To
date,
one guest speaker had responded with proposed changes, which involved the
minutes of the meeting of June 23, 2004. Professor Acker recommended
that the
proposed changes be made to the June 23 minutes. One Committee member
objected
to revising the minutes, observing that the Committee had previously
approved
the minutes as written. This objection opened a lengthy discussion about
revising previously approved minutes. Several suggestions were made
regarding
how to reflect changes or additions to the previously approved minutes.
Following this discussion, a motion was proposed: To place an asterisk
and
accompanying explanation at the relevant portion of the June 23, 2004
minutes,
indicating where and why the additions/revisions in the account of the
guest’s
remarks were made. The motion was seconded. Seven voted in favor of and
two
voted against the motion.
A committee member requested that additional changes be made to the June
23
minutes which, in this member’s opinion, would make the amended minutes
reflect
that meeting’s discussions more accurately. Discussion ensued about
whether
committee members’ proposed revisions to the amended minutes were timely
and
should be considered, and whether alternative ways of identifying
necessary
changes would be preferable. One Committee member suggested including in
today’s
minutes all changes to the June 23 minutes.
A motion was made to rescind approval of the previously adopted motion
and that
the minutes of the present meeting (Sept. 17) reflect all necessary
changes—those suggested by the guest speaker and approved changes
suggested by
committee members—to the June 23 minutes. The June 23 minutes should be
changed
to include an asterisk and accompanying note that refers readers to the
minutes
of Sept. 17 to consider changes later made in the June 23 minutes. This
motion
passed by vote of 9-0. The revised portion of the June 23, 2004 minutes
are
attached.
Professor Acker reported that another guest speaker reported a minor
factual
error regarding GAC procedures that was attributed to the speaker and
recorded
in another section of the June 23 minutes. It was suggested that this
factual
error be corrected in the original minutes. The Committee agreed to this
corrective mechanism.
Research Subcommittee Report Overview:
The committee then began a brief introductory discussion of the report of
the
Subcommittee on Research. Professor Wyckoff reported that the Research
subcommittee reviewed and considered several research-related issues.
The
subcommittee concluded that many issues related to research already are
decentralized. For example, distribution of the FRAP B research awards is
currently devolved to the colleges and schools. It further appears that
for
other issues, the costs associated with decentralization would outweigh
potential benefits, or decentralization would not be feasible (e.g.,
research
compliance, conflict of interest issues). The view was expressed that
Indirect
Cost Return (ICR) decisions involve policy decisions appropriately
residing
within the President’s authority and do not directly involve faculty
governance.
Research awards involve modest sums of money. As mentioned, FRAP B
awards
already are devolved. Decisions about FRAP A awards should remain
University-wide, so that funds can be pooled and consistency achieved.
One
member suggested that FRAP A funds could be distributed to schools and
colleges
and added to FRAP B funds, although it was pointed out that especially in
smaller units the size of awards would not be expected to increase
appreciably.
The subcommittee’s recommendations regarding no devolution of present
Council on
Research authority with respect to centers and institutes perhaps merit
greater
discussion at a future meeting.
The subcommittee was of the view that the value of Excellence in Research
awards
would be diminished if they do not remain University-wide, and further
observed
that schools and colleges are already free to bestow their own research
awards
if they wish to do so.
Additional discussion ensued about conflict of interest issues in matters
of
research, and the potential value of having stronger centralized
oversight in
this area. The University of Michigan’s and Penn State’s experiences
with
centralized review of research for potential conflicts of interest were
discussed. Suggestions were made about certain wording in the
subcommittee’s
draft report. Discussion also ensued about the number of proposals
submitted
for IRB review from one academic unit, and it was suggested that such
extensive
review might be minimized if faculty engaging students in class projects
followed different procedures. Questions were raised about whether
certain IRB
functions might be devolved to schools and colleges to help minimize
delays, and
in specific whether faculty might be “deputized” to confer approval to
students
to engage in research. However, it was pointed out that present IRB
procedures
are conducive to faculty securing blanket approval for supervising
certain class
projects, and that for other student research projects it might be
especially
important to adhere to strict and consistent research policies, including
IRB
review.
The meeting was adjourned, with continuing discussion about the Research
Subcommittee’s report anticipated at the ensuing committee meeting.
Addendum to the June 23, 2004 Ad hoc University-wide Governance Committee
Minutes
Addendum to the discussion with Professor Glenna Spitze, Department of
Sociology, outgoing chair of the Council on Promotions and Continuing
Appointments (CPCA):
Some people have expressed concern that CPCA is not able to understand
the
different expectations and conditions of employment for various
departments and
schools (e.g. Fine Arts, Public Health, Library). However, the CPCA
does make
a serious attempt to be aware of those differences, through careful
reading of
materials from chairs, the inclusion of persons from those areas on the
Council,
and occasional meetings with administrators from those units.
Professor Spitze reported that she had heard suggestions that CPCA might
be
transformed into a body that simply creates policy but does not review
individual tenure and promotion cases. She identified two drawbacks
concerning
such a transformation. First, consideration of individual cases is
important to
help inform members about policy-related issues. In addition, there must
be a
mechanism to ensure that polices are followed consistently across campus
if
general policies are to meaningful and effective.
Addendum for clarification of the promotion and tenure discussion as
represented
in the June 23, 2004 minutes:
One committee member asked Dr. Spitze about how frequently the CPCA
disagrees
with the recommendations made in tenure and promotion cases by prior
review
bodies (e.g., departmental, school, or college), expressing the view that
this
issue is important in helping define the actual contributions or value of
CPCA
as a faculty governance body that intervenes between the school or
college dean
and university provost. Professor Spitze indicated that to her knowledge
CPCA
very infrequently has departed from the recommendations made at lower
levels.
This view was supported by another committee member who had recently
served on
CPCA. A committee member suggested that if CPCA rarely if ever votes
differently from a department or school recommendation, it could be
debated
whether there is true value-added in CPCA performing an oversight role;
i.e.,
that CPCA exists in part to protect against unfair or administratively
influenced promotion and tenure votes at department or school levels.
Additional discussion ensued and alternative viewpoints were expressed
about the
extent to which CPCA, given its diverse membership, can accurately assess
cases
involving specific faculty and schools throughout the university. While
the
opinion was offered that CPCA is able to review all cases adequately, and
its
members are able to educate themselves about how different types of cases
might
differ, a committee member opined that several recent School of Public
Health
promotion review cases provided enough evidence to continue debating this
point.
The committee member stated that some faculty felt that in some SPH
cases,
involving NYS Dept. of Health faculty, the CPCA lacked an understanding
of
and/or willingness to accept the nature and appropriate sources of
consultant
letters obtained for bench scientists at the NYS Dept. of Health.
