National-Louis University

From the Faculty Senate

July 2004

During the past year we have witnessed many decisions that will effect long-term change in the University. For some, these changes have been welcome and long overdue. For many of the faculty, however, change has been viewed with alarm and anxiety. Change disrupts patterns of comfort and challenges unquestioned assumptions about who we will be and what we will do in the future.

The Senate has not been a leader in change. It has frequently been a voice of resistance—resisting too little and too late to stall the momentum of efforts by the University Planning Group and others working to focus and redirect the energies of National-Louis University and to reestablish a stable financial foundation that has eluded us for the past several years.

During this tumultuous period confidence in the effectiveness of faculty’s role in governance has eroded. While there has been a growth of decision-making bodies that involve both faculty and administration, many faculty members have come to believe these new arrangements bypass the procedures for governance established by the Faculty Association Constitution. While extra-constitutional groups have multiplied, at the same time members of the faculty have been withdrawing from traditional instruments of governance as defined by the Faculty Constitution. It has become increasingly difficult to persuade faculty members to run for elective office and some Senate committees have remained without leadership for months. More recently, the Senate chair resigned within days of assuming her official duties.

In the latter half of this academic year, email messages of frustration and anger have been disseminated with increasing frequency to all faculty. While a relatively small number have spoken, all have listened. And all have become anxious and confused about the effectiveness of faculty voice. In one statement, the faculty of the College of Management and Business argues that committees such as the University Planning Group have “circumvented, usurped, and weakened faculty governance.”

So this past year has been marked with tensions. Addressing decade old problems, the Board of Trustees has redirected the University away from what some perceived as historical symbols of the University’s proud tradition, most notably the Baker Demonstration School and the Evanston campus. Some faculty reacted loudly and strongly in support of these historical symbols, but they do not believe their voices have been heard. The right of faculty to be heard, of course, is not a right to prevail—although it is frequently difficult for many to discern the difference.

Despite the discouragement and frustration of some members of the faculty, many things were achieved through the efforts of the Senate and its committees—one might argue, many more things than in years previously. The following identifies some of those achievements. More important, however, is the work remaining to be done to rebuild confidence in shared governance and to reignite hope in the University’s future. This work has begun in a recent initiative of the Senate identified below.

Activities

Acceding to a request of the Faculty Association, the Board of Trustees agreed to invite a faculty member from the Senate Academic Planning Committee to join the Board’s Academic Affairs Committee and a faculty member from the Senate Finance Committee to join the Board’s Financial Affairs Committee.

The University’s legal counsel accepted revisions to the Policy on Conflict of Interest recommended by the Senate.

On the recommendation of the Faculty Standards, Evaluation, and Appeals Committee, the Senate passed a Mentoring Policy. The policy has been forwarded to the Provost who will work with the Deans on ways to institutionalize the policy.

The Senate’s Task Force on Non-Tenure Track Faculty prepared a report that has been accepted by the Senate as a template for the colleges and the library to develop and implement their own policies for determining whether and under what conditions to employ non-tenure track faculty. This template is now in the hands of the Deans.

The Senate approved the Charter of the Adjunct Council, establishing the Council as a governance unit representing adjunct faculty. The Senate will now move to incorporate the adjunct faculty as members of the Faculty Association (see below).

The Senate nominated the sixteen faculty members who were participants in the Visioning Workshop in February.

The Senate approved the Final Report of the Senate Task Force on Undergraduate Education. This report was used as a resource both by the Visioning Workshop and by UPG in drafting its Statement of Priorities and Focus for the Board of Trustees.

Work-in-Progress

In order to strengthen confidence in faculty’s role in shared governance, the Senate has called upon the former and current chairs of the Faculty Senate to comprise an Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty and Governance. The purpose of this committee is to determine the current status of faculty’s role in decision-making. The Senate has asked members of the committee to apply the rigors of their academic disciplines to understanding the status of faculty and shared governance in all its manifestations at the University, including appointed faculty/administrative committees (UPG, FAC), hybrid groups of faculty and administrators to which faculty are elected (CEM, UTC), and interest-based task forces. It is assumed that such an understanding will be grounded on data derived from many sources, including input from faculty, administrators, and Trustees, as well as on written documentation— minutes of meetings, formal statements, charges, and other resource materials. The aim is to ground discussions of faculty’s role in governance in evidence.

The Task Force on the Termination of Tenure-Track Faculty for Cause, an interest-based group of both faculty and administrators, continues its work, reporting regularly to the Senate.

The Task Force on Compensation, another interest-based group of both faculty and administrators, has neared completion of its work. The work of this Task Force has been closely aligned with discussions in the Senate and in the Faculty Welfare and Compensation Committee.

The Senate will, over the summer, develop language for the revision of the Faculty Association Constitution in order to bring adjunct faculty into membership in the Association.

The Senate Sabbatical Committee worked with the Office of the Provost to revise the Sabbatical Policy. The Senate has approved this revision, which will now be forwarded to the Faculty Association for its approval in the fall.

Concerns

Obviously, the final resolution of issues related to the Baker Demonstration School are a source of major concern for those faculty who desire to retain a close working relationship with the school and its faculty. While faculty members in the National College of Education and a few in the College of Arts and Sciences continue to press for involvement in the decisions being made, it is nonetheless clear that the involvement of too many groups has been disruptive of the process underway in the Baker Leadership Advisory Group.

Similar concerns over the intended sale of the Evanston campus are likely to be dissolved once plans for the replacement campus are announced.

The phase out of CMB programming and the closing of the Applied Behavioral Science Program in Florida has not been submitted for review to the Senate Academic Planning Committee and therefore adds support to the conclusion of those who believe that programs are being closed without faculty consultation.

The absence of agreed-upon data has led to conflicting conclusions about the impact of the English for Speakers of Other Languages Program (ESOL) on undergraduate programs and the on role of the elimination of a subsidy versus other causes on decreasing ESOL enrollment. Therefore, the elimination of ESOL continues to cause persistent feelings of bitterness and anger, diverting energy from constructive efforts to reinvent this program in the face of increased competition. It should also be noted that the closing of the ESOL program was not submitted for review to Senate Academic Planning, as required by the Planning Handbook and directed by the Senate. As with the program closings in Florida already mentioned, this too adds to the waning confidence of faculty in shared governance.

E

While anxiety is high and confusion abounds, many faculty—perhaps most—are cautiously optimistic about our future, recognizing that we are a fragile institution, which in order to survive must adapt to new markets and change in significant ways. At the same time, there is a strong commitment to this University’s traditions of innovative and socially grounded education—traditions which give us unique standing among our competitors. The faculty will strongly resist compromising these traditions, but will serve the institution well in times of transition, once convinced that proposed changes will not lead us to abandon our academic and pedagogical heritage.

On a positive note, major decisions about academic matters and policy affecting faculty are now being made collaboratively, although many faculty are unable to acknowledge that. A major challenge for the Senate in the year ahead will be to reverse growing skepticism among faculty and renew confidence in shared governance, both in its constitutional and extra-constitutional manifestations. This will be especially important if discussions of a merger with Roosevelt University move forward during the summer and beyond.

Collaboration between faculty and the Board of Trustees has never been stronger— this despite faculty dismay and anger over many decisions made this past year. It is clearly in our mutual interest to continue to promote avenues of dialogue between Trustees and members of the faculty. It is essential that faculty and administrators continue to work collaboratively whenever possible, while attending to the skepticism with which such joint ventures are viewed by many. It is hoped that the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty and Governance will help to shed light on these efforts in shared governance and lead eventually to greater confidence in decisions that boldly set direction for our future.

Tom Heaney

For the Faculty Senate

July 2004