Adopted:
MEETING OF
MARCH 29, 2002
President
George Rupp, the chairman, called the Senate to order at 1:15 pm in Schapiro
Engineering Auditorium. Forty-eight of 89 senators were present during the
meeting.
Minutes and agenda: The agenda was adopted as
proposed. Sen. Henry Pinkham, dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences,
offered a revision to the minutes of February 22, which had recorded the
increase in applications to GSAS for next year as 4 percent; the final number
was 12 percent.
President’s report:
—The NYC Board of Standards and Appeals has approved
a set of variances needed to begin construction of the new School of Social
Work on Amsterdam Avenue between 121st and 122nd streets.
Groundbreaking is scheduled in late June or early July for the first building
to be constructed expressly for the School, which has made do for years in a
converted Single Room Occupancy hotel on 113th Street.
—The election to determine whether the United Auto
Workers will represent student teachers and research assistants as their
collective bargaining agent took place on March 13, 14, and 19. Participation
was strong, on the order of 80 percent. A significant number of ballot
challenges will have to be adjudicated. The president expressed optimism that
eligible students had voted not to accept the UAW as their representative, but
he said any assessment of the results at this point is speculative. All the
ballots have also been impounded, pending the outcome of the University’s
appeal on the “status” issue—the question of whether student teachers and
research assistants are understood to be employees under the National Labor
Relations Act. The NLRB has agreed to hear that appeal. The president said the
final decision will set 30 years of precedent against a single recent decision,
the ruling by the NLRB’s regional director that NYU students who teach are
employees. If the University wins the appeal, the president said, the results
of the election will unfortunately never be known, but at least there won’t be
more elections. He said the transaction costs of holding them, in time and
energy, are significant. He said the appeal would probably be a matter of
months.
—Arizona State University has just announced that
Michael Crow, Executive Vice Provost at Columbia, will be their next president.
President Rupp praised the energy and imagination that Dr. Crow has committed
to moving Columbia forward. The change is an exciting opportunity for Dr. Crow,
he said, but a sobering loss for the University.
Nominations to committees: Executive Committee
chairman Paul Duby (Ten., SEAS) announced the nomination of Sen. Marni Hall
(Stu., GSAS/NS) to represent the student caucus on the Executive Committee in
the seat recently vacated by Rohit Aggarwala. The Senate unanimously elected
Sen. Hall.
Sen.
Duby read a list of late changes in committee assignments, which the Senate
approved.
Report of the Executive
Committee chairman:
—Trustee relations: At the plenary Trustee meeting on March 2, Sen. Duby (Ten., SEAS) and Sen. Roosevelt Montas (Stu., GSAS/Hum.) learned that Lee Bollinger will become president of Columbia at this year’s last Trustee meeting on June 1, a month earlier than originally planned. The Trustees discussed issues presented by their online learning committee, which may lead to some decisions for next year. They also discussed the financial condition (and interdependence) of New York Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia’s medical school. An extensive presentation by James Neal, University Librarian, focused on the future importance of the distinction between the virtual and the physical library.
At their March meeting, the Trustees also elected Faye Wattleton as the next Senate-consulted Trustee, a decision reached after consultations a few weeks earlier with a nominating subcommittee of the Senate Executive Committee. There remain three vacancies on the Board.
Sen. Duby urged senators to recommend nominees for honorary degrees, for the confidential consideration of the Senate Honors and Prizes Committee.
Sen. Duby asked committee chairs to submit their annual reports well in advance of the last Executive Committee meeting.
Old business:
—Report from Misumbo Byrd, director of the Office of
Sexual Misconduct
Prevention
and Education, on the first two years of experience of the policy on student
sexual misconduct adopted by the Senate on February 25, 2000. Ms. Byrd invited
questions about her written report, which had been distributed.
Sen.
Michael Shelanski (Ten., HS) asked why the Law School had opted out of the
policy. Associate General Counsel Patricia Catapano, who had chaired the Senate
task force that developed the policy, said the Law School has its own
disciplinary policy. The president explained that the Law School policy has
features of the criminal justice system—provision for legal representation and
direct rebuttal of witnesses, for example —that the Senate saw as incompatible
with the goals of a policy on student sexual misconduct.
Ms.
Byrd summarized her report, saying her office provides preventive education and
oversees a special adjudication process for students with complaints of sexual
misconduct. Since the adoption of the policy, one case has been decided by a
hearing panel, another complaint was withdrawn before a panel could be formed,
and a third is now pending.
Ms.
Byrd said she began her work in October 2001, and has been developing a student
advisory board. She is also in regular contact with other University offices,
including the Rape Crisis Center, Alice, Women’s Health, the Ombuds Office, and
Affirmative Action.
Sen.
Montas asked about the status of two appendices to the report, a list of
contacts from possible complainants since the spring of 2001 and new procedural
regulations adopted in September 2001 for the disciplinary procedure. Ms. Byrd
said these changes, adopted before her arrival, are designed to clarify some
features of the policy.
Sen.
Gyasi Ross (Stu., Law) asked if the policy includes a sanction against a
student who brings a fraudulent complaint. Patsy Catapano said such a student
is subject to discipline under the policy.
Sen.
Duby called attention to an additional set of written comments on Ms. Byrd’s
report that her office had distributed at the door. One letter, from four
students, noted the high levels of student involvement in the Senate’s adoption
of the present policy two years ago, and expressed dissatisfaction with the
degree of student participation since then.
Ms.
Byrd said she was working with these and other students, and hoped to assure
that there will be no need for a critique of this kind when the policy comes up
for review.
Sen.
Montas asked Ms. Byrd to comment on the complaint in the letter from the four
students that the policy has been changed. She said her sense is that the new
appendix on procedures in the disciplinary process is more a clarification or
an expansion of present policy than a change. For example, it balances the
right of the accused to witness the testimony of the accuser with the accuser’s
need for a sense of safety by allowing each to see the other’s testimony on
closed-circuit TV.
In
response to a question, she said outreach and education are essential to the
effort to make sure that people are aware of the policy and feel free to make
complaints.
The
president called attention to a resolution, drafted by the Executive Committee
and distributed at the door, to postpone for two years the review of the policy
scheduled for this year. The main reason for postponement is that the
experience of the adjudicatory process so far has been so slight.
Sen.
Montas suggested amending the resolution to specify a date—the spring of 2004—
for the postponed review. Hearing no objection, the president accepted the
amendment as friendly on behalf of the Executive Committee.
Sen.
Sharyn O’Halloran asked Ms. Byrd if the Senate could foster communication about
the policy in the time leading up to the review. Ms. Byrd said it would help if
students could help develop a process for conducting the review.
President
Rupp asked for the record to show that agreement to postpone the review will
include an arrangement for Ms. Byrd’s office to work with the Executive
Committee to devise a way to conduct a review in a way that includes students.
The
Senate adopted the amended resolution without dissent.
—Report from Faculty Affairs: Some Disparities in
Faculty Salaries at Columbia,
(with
accompanying resolutions): Sen. Eugene Litwak (Ten., A&S/SS) proposed to
present the two accompanying resolutions separately. He asked Sen. Frances
Pritchett (Ten., A&S/Hum) to speak to the first one, on language lecturers.
Resolution to Learn about the Scale of Disparities
in Salaries between Language Lecturers and Assistant Professors within Academic
Departments:
Sen. Pritchett said there seems to be general agreement that language
lecturers’ salaries need to be improved. She presented the resolution as an
attempt to acquire nonconfidential data that might guide this effort.
The
Senate adopted the resolution without dissent.
Resolution to Learn about the Scale of Salary
Disparities among Senior Faculty within Academic Departments: Sen. Litwak said that while
there seemed to be broad agreement that disparities among senior professors’
salaries are troubling, there are different ideas in the faculty caucuses about
how to address this problem. Instead of pursuing a resolution now, the group is
interested in forming a committee including other segments of the University to
work more on the problem. Sen. Litwak asked to withdraw the resolution, with
the understanding that concerns behind it remain important to the caucuses,
which may bring a new proposal to the Senate, perhaps in the fall.
At the president’s request, the Sen. Litwak
summarized some of the issues involved. The initial concern about sharp
disparities between the salaries of full professors in the same department was
that market forces, revealed in outside offers to Columbia faculty and in
Columbia’s efforts to recruit outside faculty, were skewing decisions about
salaries. Productive faculty members who have not entertained outside offers
for one reason or another have generally been paid less well. Another concern
was that Columbia faculty salaries at senior levels are generally not
competitive with those at peer institutions. A third approach considers ways to
recognize merit.
New business:
—Interim Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on
Research Staff Affairs: Sen.
Barry
Allen (Res. Stf./HS) summarized the work of the committee, which the Senate
created in January 2001 after he and Sen. Stephanie Neuman (Res. Stf./Morn.)
had held a series of meetings with colleagues at Lamont, Morningside, and
Health Sciences.
The
committee has received useful demographic information from the administration
about research officers, a group with more than 1800 members. About one-third
of these are professional research officers, about a quarter are staff
officers, and the rest are post-doctoral research officers.
Many
members of the group feel vulnerable and pressured by their supervisors, who
are mostly faculty members.
The
upshot of the committee’s work is a recommendation for an increase in the
number of Senate representatives from two to six, including four professional
researchers (three senior, one junior), one staff associates, and one post-doc.
One
reason for the relatively large professional research group is that the
committee’s second request is for a standing committee of nine, with a
grievance function analogous to that of Faculty Affairs, and such a role would
require a significant number of senior members. In discussions with Structure
and Operations, there has not yet been agreement on what kind of role such a
committee should play in hearing grievances.
The
committee’s third request is to add new seats for researchers on a number of committees
on which researchers are not now represented, including Education, Housing
Policy, and others.
Sen.
Allen said he hoped the committee will continue as an ad hoc group for another
year, while it continues the present dialogue with Structure and Operations.
But the long-term issues researchers want to address, including grievances and
possible revisions of researchers’ titles, will require a permanent standing
committee.
With
the presentation of the present interim report, Sen. Allen said he hoped to be
able to report some progress at the end of this year on the work of Structure
and Operations.
Sen.
Duby said the Executive Committee and Structure and Operations both favored
extending the life of the ad hoc committee for another year.
Sen.
Richard Bulliet (Ten., A&S/SS), the acting chair of Structure and
Operations, said his committee’s discussions had made clear that proportional
representation based on numbers was not a founding principle of the Senate. At
the same time the number of research officers has grown enormously since the
start of the Senate in 1969, along with their contribution to the University’s
budget. So the committee has looked sympathetically on the idea that there
should be a significant increase in researchers’ representation in the Senate.
Now the committee is looking at the question of constituency—should it be based
simply on titles as defined in the Faculty Handbook, or on geography? Another
question is the exact role of a standing committee of researchers. While the
committee expects to act on the researchers’ proposal, Sen. Bulliet said it is
unlikely there will be a resolution by the April Senate meeting. But he hoped
for a resolution early in the fall.
Sen.
Neuman pointed out that because of the vulnerability of their position, a
number of researchers are afraid. As a result, it may be difficult to
accomplish elections for each geographical location. That’s why the ad hoc
committee had recommended an at-large distribution of Senate seats, so that the
committee could redress any imbalance in the composition of the Senate
delegation by appointing non-senators to the committee from each school without
a Senate representative. Sen. Neuman expressed confidence that Structure and
Operations would act on the researchers’ request; the question was when.
Sen.
Letty Moss-Salentijn (Ten., SDOS) said that, as the lone faculty representative
on the ad hoc researchers’ committee, she has been struck by this group’s
vulnerability. She strongly endorsed the committee’s request for a separate
grievance committee, and asked for a quick decision from Structure and
Operations on that issue.
Sen.
Montas asked how the three non-elected members of the proposed standing
committee would be chosen. Sen. Allen said the request for three non-senator
members was a compromise resulting from earlier versions of the proposal which
had called for a larger number of members, all of whom would be senators. The
only way to provide for a number of committee members larger than the proposed
number of senators was to allow some of them to be non-senators, appointed in
some way yet to be determined.
—Guiding Principles for the Administrative Conduct
of Deans, Department
Chairs,
and Directors of Institutes (Faculty Affairs): Sen. Moss-Salentijn summarized
the guidelines, which she said should not be necessary. Grievances that have
come to Faculty Affairs over the years have revealed a number of problems in
the conduct of some deans and department chairs. In some instances, these
administrators have grievously violated standards of proper behavior.
Since
the committee delegated the task of drafting these guidelines to her two years
ago, Sen. Moss-Salentijn has presented various drafts to Faculty Affairs and
the faculty caucuses, as well as other sympathetic readers. The guidelines set
forth minimal standards of behavior for administrators. Sen. Moss-Salentijn
asked for discussion to guide the committee in preparing a final version for
Senate action.
Sen.
Litwak said he has observed a trend away from a collegial, democratic model of
university governance over the years toward a more corporate model, in which
the University functions more like a business enterprise. He said the proposed
guidelines state basic truths about how a university should work. Similar
guidelines have been offered for faculty conduct; sadly, he said, it is also
necessary to state such guidelines explicitly for administrators of academic
units.
Sen.
Bulliet commended the guidelines as a philosophical statement, but said the
fourth paragraph of the introduction goes beyond philosophy in setting forth
specific rules detailing abuses subject to Senate censure.
A
former director of an institute that did not have a specific set of faculty
members, Sen. Bulliet said he was troubled by the idea that the proposed
guidelines might embody a set of enforceable rules. A year ago, he said, a
faculty member claimed Sen. Bulliet had no legitimacy as an institute director
because he had not been elected by faculty, but appointed by the dean. He said
the more than 130 institutes and centers operate very differently from schools
and departments, and should not be covered by the guidelines.
Sen.
Litwak said a student senator in a recent discussion had stressed the need for
more formality in the governance of institutes as well as schools and
departments. He concluded that rules have a different value depending on one’s
perspective. He acknowledged the diversity of the University’s organizations,
but repeated that an affirmation of collegiality would benefit all of them.
Howard
Jacobson, the parliamentarian, called attention to statutory distinctions
between schools or faculties on the one hand, and institutes on the other.
Members of institutes are drawn from different faculties; personnel decisions
about them are not made by directors.
Sen.
Litwak replied that the Statutes empower the Senate to establish institutes,
and therefore to examine their rules and procedures. The president said the
Statutes provide a useful vantage point from which to consider principles of
this kind.
Sen.
Marni Hall (Stu., GSAS/NS) said it was she who had commented on the need for
clear rules for institutes, mainly because of numerous questions she has
received as a member of the student caucus from constituents.
Sen.
Shelanski, chair of the Department of Pathology, said the proposed guidelines,
presented as something like a set of University-wide by-laws, may not fit the
highly diverse range of academic units, particularly at Health Sciences.
The
president said he had requested in the Executive Committee that administrators
who might be affected by the proposed guidelines have a chance to comment. He
had recommended contacting the Council of Deans. He suggested that the Arts and
Sciences department chairs, who meet regularly, and the Health Sciences
department chairs should also be consulted. He said the scale of these
operations varies enormously, from Medicine, with 1000 members, to Nursing,
with three. He requested that Faculty Affairs solicit comment from all of these
groups, just as a policy on sexual misconduct requires input from affected
student groups.
In
response to a question from Sen. Allen, the president said he read the
guidelines as applying to academic units, composed basically of faculty.
Including administrative units would greatly expand the purview of the
guidelines.
Sen.
Moss-Salentijn said the Sen. Hall’s comment about the need for by-laws for all
academic units was particularly useful. She recalled that all units were once
required to provide by-laws, which were centrally filed. She said the word
“democracy” seemed to alarm her clinical colleagues, and she had no intention
of making units ungovernable, but she said any unit with working by-laws is
already proceeding appropriately.
The
president adjourned the meeting at around 2:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Mathewson, Senate staff