Present: Berent, Bradley, Burdi, Byosiere, Carlisle, Combi, Elenbogen, Ensminger,
Faerber, Fisher, Giordani, Gobetti, Goldman, Gould, Green, Gull, Huntley, Karr,
Keller-Cohen, Koopmann, Kosch, Moore, Okada, Overmyer, Pedraza, Powell,
Prasad, Raisler, Remick, Riebesell, Sagher, Shimp, Simpson, Watkins, Winter,
Yakel, Yeo; Lehman
Alternate: Richard Ohye for Medicine (Kyung Cho)
Absent: Akerlof, Alfred, Andersen, Andre, Atreya, Barsky, Bartlett, Bhavnani,
Boyd, Brown, Clark, Colas, Drach, Fishman, Frier, Hall, Hills, Ketefian, Kim,
Johnson, Lindner, Lithgow-Bertelloni, McDonagh, Ni, Norris, Orr, Page, Pennell Ross,
Peterson, Robertson, Ruffin, Savage, Schwendeman, Sension, Seyhun, Shelden,
Tappenden, Thornton, Tropman, Wechlser, Whatley
MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED
1.
Senate Assembly agenda
2.
Draft minutes of the Senate Assembly meeting of 27 January 2003
3.
Recommendation from Research Policies Committee to F. Ulaby, dated 10
January 2003 (corrected 16 January 2002 [sic]) regarding establishment of
“research professor”
4.
Handout for research professor presentation, undated
5.
Survey of “Research Professor” title used by Universities, undated
6.
Use of PRS, Senior PRS and Clinical Titles by Major Appointing Unit,
undated
Chair
Koopmann convened the meeting at 3:17 P.M.
The proposed agenda was adopted.
CONSIDERATION
OF THE MINUTES OF 27 JANUARY 2003
The
minutes of 27 January 2003 were approved as submitted.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES
Chair Koopmann announced:
1.
The Senate Assembly will next meet on 17 March 2003. A major item of business will be election of SACUA
representatives.
2.
Senate Assembly members are invited to volunteer for service on Senate
Assembly committees. Members should also invite participation by other faculty in
their units.
3.
The Academic adviser for the varsity football team has asked to make a
presentation to Senate Assembly and is seeking a “guest coach” who would
follow and observe the daily routine of varsity athletes.
The individual would be hosted as a guest of Athletic Director Martin
in the AD box at a football game. Professor
Burdi suggested that as another alternative the individual might attend a
meeting of the Academic Performance Committee.
PROPOSAL
FOR RESEARCH PROFESSOR DESIGNATION
Chair Koopmann invited Professor Giordani to report on the most recent meeting
of the Academic Affairs Advisory Committee.
Professor Giordani reported that concern had been expressed about
proposals within the Medical School to abbreviate “clinical professor”
simply to “professor” for general use in communication. He said that concern extended to blurring of distinction
between different employment tracks and consequences for governance.
He said that the provost had stated that creation of a new “research
professor” title was a separate issue from abbreviation of the title.
Professor
Burdi asked what the trend in numbers has been for tenure-track lines at
schools that adopted non-tenured research professor titles.
Professor Giordani replied that he has seen no numbers relevant to the
question.
PRESENTATION
BY RESEARCH POLICIES COMMITTEE CHAIR
At 3:30 P.M. Chair Koopmann gave the floor to Professor Katarina Borer, RPC
chair. Professor Borer made a
presentation parallel to distributed item 4.
She stated that the existing title “senior research scientist” was
ambiguous, and that in response to a request from the vice president for
research the RPC developed the recommendations in distributed item 3.
Professor
Giordani pointed out that addition of criteria for involvement in
undergraduate or graduate teaching is a fundamental change in job description.
Professor Borer replied that teaching is to be considered ancillary to
their research. Professor Burdi
stated that the proposal implies there would be additional teaching of
undergraduates by non tenure track personnel.
Professor
Prasad remarked that elsewhere “research professor” is an honorific title
that connotes special distinction, with reduced teaching duties.
Professor
Fisk, department chair of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Science stated that
there were 5 senior research scientists in his department and that the
promotion criteria for these individuals was strenuous and similar to
promotion and tenure evaluations for tenure track faculty. He said that criteria involve international reputation,
publications, and external letters. Fisk
said that in his department the only thing that distinguishes the senior
research scientists from tenure track faculty is that they do not perform
regular classroom teaching. However,
he added, sometimes they are invited to deliver a lecture course, and then
they are paid from department funds.
Professor
Burdi asked Professor Fisk why AOSS does not hire these people on the tenure
track. Fisk replied that his dean
does not have infinite amounts of money.
He added that the situation is wonderful from the administrative
perspective because his department gets world class scholars who teach, do
research, and so forth.
Professor
Riebesell asked for evidence that senior research scientists have trouble
getting grants because of their existing titles. Fisk replied that he thought their own stature and the
quality of proposals gets them the grants.
He said this is more a matter of recognition.
Riebesell asked if the individuals would participate in tenure
decisions. Fisk replied that his
department would use only the tenure track faculty to make those decisions.
Professor
Borer pointed out that “research assistant professor” is proposed as a new
title that can be bestowed by the vice president for research.
Her prepared presentation ended at 3:55 P.M.
PRESENTATION
BY VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH
Vice President for Research Ulaby arrived at 4 P.M.
He made remarks encouraging adoption of the proposed “research
professor” titles (distributed item 3).
He said that conferral of the titles takes away nothing from anybody
else. He said that he could raise
questions about instructional faculty who got tenure 20 years ago and are no
longer productive. He said this
is not a step toward tenure, and that there is no intention from the president
on down to take any such step. He
said that in his own lab he saw 2 research scientists who deserved the
recognition, and so he said ‘why not give them the recognition?’
Professor
Raisler declared that research scientists play an important role in the School
of Nursing. She said that
students might be reluctant to have a mentor that does not have the professor
title. VP Ulaby said that he had
consulted a dictionary and could report that “profess” means “to
communicate knowledge.” Professor
Lehman asked whether these proposed professors would be extended the
protections of due process built into Regents Bylaw 5.09 if they are expected
to teach students. The vice
president replied that the administration is not talking about giving them any
additional rights than they have now.
Professor
Carr asked whether people would be able to switch between research tracks.
He said he detected a clear channelization in the proposed track
structure. VP Ulaby replied that
research scientists can switch tracks already.
He said that he thought only the Medical School would implement the
assistant research professor title. He
said that all the decisions would be reviewed in his office.
Now, he said, assistant research scientists are handled in the units
entirely.
Professor
Gobetti said that he could foresee incumbents claiming next that
“clinical” and “research” modifiers are marks of second class status.
Ulaby replied that the administration understands that different titles
apply to different jobs.
Chair
Koopmann reported that he suggested to the provost that there should be a
directive against conveniently dropping the modifiers.
He said that Ulaby’s statement does not conform to what AAAC had been
told. Professor Giordani
expressed agreement, and added that AAAC had been informed of proposals to
shorten both “clinical professor” and “research professor” simply to
“professor” in the context of “working titles.”
Professor
Raisler stated that faculty duties include teaching, research, and clinical
functions, and that few people can be outstanding at it all.
She said she favors the change as a gesture of respect within the
academy. Professor Riebesell
commented that the School of Nursing presently has no one eligible for the new
title because they have no one with a “senior research” title.
Professor Miller informed the Assembly that Nursing has moved to adopt
the new title, but it is still in process with the OVPR.
She said that all research scientists in Nursing are presently in Track
1, but that there are a number of people who will be entering Track 2 when it
is available. VP Ulaby commented
that even the School of Engineering did not have the Track 2 until two years
ago.
Professor
Giordani stated that in the Medical School, clinical professors are claiming
they have second class titles. He
said that the administration was now creating the same situation with research
professors. He expressed the need
for a statement from the administration about their intentions.
He asked what would happen to the senior research scientists who do not
want to teach. VP Ulaby replied
that if you look at the 62 individuals he was talking about today, there are
some 4 or 5 who have not been involved in teaching.
He said that people would be alerted to the criteria in the future.
He said the existing senior research scientists would be given the
title anyway, thus grandfathering them in.
Professor
Yeo commented that Ulaby had said the evaluation criteria for senior research
scientist was equivalent to that of tenure track faculty.
She asked him to explain. The
vice president replied that presently the provost can not handle all the
promotion material from all the units. So
already, he said, the vice president for research and the provost plus
associate provosts divide up the files and each file is looked at by two of
them. He said they would do the
same thing with the research professor titles.
Professor
Gobetti expressed opposition to grandfathering all senior research scientists
as “research professors” regardless of whether they teach or not.
Ulaby replied that the administration would apply the strict criteria
to all new hires but that he would not insult those people who don’t qualify
presently. He said the disharmony
outweighs the merit.
A
visitor, Dr. Teasley from the School of Information, addressed the Assembly.
She said that she was a senior associate research scientist, and that
she was insulted by comments suggesting that she does not deserve the title
“research professor.” She
stated that there are Ph.D., M.S. and undergraduate students in her lab
already or how else would the work get done.
VP
Ulaby left the meeting at 4:45 P.M.
Professor
Burdi suggested that a joint committee of AAAC and RPC should consider the
proposal jointly. Chair Koopmann
pointed out that SACUA had considered the proposal one week ago and had voted
against the proposal.
________________________________________________________________________________
Professor
Winter moved adoption of both proposals listed in distributed item 3, and a
second to the motion was expressed. In
the presence of a large gallery and therefore inability to assess quorum,
Chair Koopmann asked for Assembly members to stand to express their vote.
Vote
on the active motion:
Number
approving- 26
Number
opposing- 9
_________________________________________________________________________________
Professor
Gobetti announced that SACUA held its election for chair and vice-chair for
the up-coming year; Professor Koopmann was elected chair and Professor
Riebesell was elected vice chair.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Professor
Gobetti moved that the modifiers “clinical” and “research” be
mandatory in all official communications, letterhead, and other documents
(multiple seconds).
Vote
on the active motion:
Number
approving- 23
Number
disapproving- 5
