M I N U T E S
The Executive Committee of the Board of Visitors met on Monday, March 11, 1991, at 3:00 PM, in the Board Room of the New Administration Building. The following members of the Committee were in attendance:
George Dragas, Jr., Rector
Richard F. Barry III
Gene R. Carter, Sr.
James K. Hall
Ann H. Kilgore
J. Michael Pitchford
Robert E. Washington
Brenda T. Williams
Also present from the Board of Visitors were:Gabriel Kavadias
Beverley R. Lawler
Jackson K. Parker
H. B. Price III
Sybil M. Walker
Also present were:James V. Koch, President
Dana D. Burnett
Paul J. Champagne
Myron S. Henry
E. Wayne Higgins
Patrick B. Kelly
Kay A. Kemper
Griffith J. McRee
Donna W. Meeks
Beth Ownley
Chris Sehman
Richard A. Staneski
Edward A. Staylor, Jr.
Philip Walzer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1991
Rector Dragas called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of January 14, 1991. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the minutes were approved as distributed.
REVISION OF BOARD POLICIES
The Rector called on President Koch to present the resolutions. President Koch commented that at the last meeting the Board charged him with revising the University's policies and procedures dealing with termination of programs and dismissal of tenured faculty members in cases involving financial exigency. Specifically, he was asked to make the policies less complex, more easily under-stood, and easier to implement. Acting on that charge, the President asked Provost Henry to appoint a committee to revise the policies in accordance with the Board's charge. The Committee has completed its work and has made recommendations to Provost Henry, who has, in turn, recommended to the President two policies for the Board's consideration. The President asked Provost Henry to present the policies.
Provost Henry commented that Griffith McRee, Paul Champagne, Pat Kelly, Janet Bing, Karen Polonko and Deanne Shuman served on the ad hoc committee, with Dr. McRee as chair. The first policy for the Board's consideration, "Policies for the Review of Academic Programs, Departments or Colleges for the Purpose of Possible Curtailment or Discontinuance," is much shorter and more simplified than the corresponding policy and accompanying guidelines currently in the Faculty Handbook. Provost Henry pointed out the major differences between the old and new policies; namely, the number of days for review and the initiating parties. Under the old policy, deans, departments and the Faculty Senate had 120 days to review programs; under the new, 75 days. The President and Provost had 30 days each to review programs under the old policy, but only 15 days under the new. Under the old policy, only deans initiated program reviews; under the new, deans, department chairs, the Provost and the President may do so. The proposed policy, as written, is supported by the ad hoc committee, Faculty Senate and the Council of Senior Academic Deans. Provost Henry recommended it to the Board for their approval.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously approved:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE POLICY FOR THE REVIEW OF ACADEMIC
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR COLLEGES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF POSSIBLE CURTAILMENT OR DISCONTINUANCE
RESOLVED, that upon the recommendation of the Provost and the President, the Board of Visitors approves the following Policy for the Review of Academic Programs, Departments or Colleges for the Purpose of Possible Curtailment or Discontinuance, effective immediately:
POLICY FOR THE REVIEW OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS,
DEPARTMENTS OR COLLEGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
POSSIBLE CURTAILMENT OR DISCONTINUANCE
A. General Statement of Policy
This policy provides the process for evaluation that shall be followed for the review of academic programs, departments or colleges for the purpose of possible curtailment or discontinuance.
The process described in this policy should be conducted expeditiously by all participating, reviewing, recommending, and deciding bodies. Failure to comply with the time limits may cause a forfeiture of the right to comment, review or recommend. Time limits shall be calculated in calendar days.
B. Process for the Evaluation of Programs, Departments or Colleges
The following process shall be followed in evaluating academic programs, departments, or colleges for possible curtailment or discontinuance.
1. The affected unit's Program Director, Chair, Academic Dean, or Provost ("initiator") may initiate the action for possible curtailment or discontinuance. The initial recommendation, with the approval of the Provost, if he/she is not the initiator, shall be in written form and provided simultaneously to the Dean(s) of the affected unit(s), and the affected unit(s). The initial recommendation shall specify the facts precipitating the need for change, the proposed change and rationale and preliminary analysis of financial impact. This document shall also project the possible impact upon affected faculty, staff, and students; a revised human resource plan for these individuals; and the desired timetable for implementation.
2. The initiator shall consult closely with the administrators and faculty of the affected unit(s).
3. Upon receipt of the initial recommendation, and within forty-five (45) days, the Dean(s) and the unit(s) to be affected, including the relevant college governance unit(s), shall, either jointly or separately, conduct an appropriate review of the program, department, or college, considering, among other things, the following criteria. The criteria need not be evenly weighted, nor should the list be considered exclusive.
a. The relevancy and relationship of the program to the mission and objectives of the college and university.
b. The overall quality of the affected unit presently and potentially.
c. Cost and revenues associated with the affected unit.
d. Student enrollment/productivity.
e. The current and projected relationship to other programs, departments, or institutions.
f. Distinctive and unique features in concept, design or implementation.
g. Impact on women and minorities.
h. Implications with respect to research.
i. Impact on student needs.
j. Placement and employment opportunities for students.
k. Alternatives to curtailment, discontinuation, consolidation, or significant reorganization.
4. Within fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of the time for review, the Provost shall notify the chairs of the Senates that materials will be sent to them for action pursuant to this policy.
5. After review at the college level, the academic dean (including the college's governance unit(s)), and the affected unit will forward their recommendations, with all supporting documentation, within the time prescribed, simultaneously to the Faculty Senate, Student Senate and Provost for review.
6. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of materials, the Faculty and Student Senates shall forward their recommendations to the Provost.
7. The Provost shall conduct an independent analysis of the initial recommendation (unless he/she initiated the process). Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of recommendations from the Senates, the Provost shall review the recommendations of the Dean(s), affected unit(s), Faculty Senate and Student Senate and make a recommendation of proposed action to the President.
Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the Provost's recommendations, the President shall review the recommendation of proposed action, consult any parties which are deemed appropriate, and make a final decision on whether or not the program, department or college shall be curtailed or discontinued. Upon completion of this review, the President shall make a recommendation on the matter to the Board of Visitors for action. After the Board has made its decision on the matter, the President shall inform all members of the University community in an appropriate manner.
C. To the greatest extent possible, the status quo shall be maintained within and with respect to the affected unit(s) until such time as a final decision has been reached by the Board of Visitors and it has directed the President to take action.
Provost Henry indicated that the second proposed policy, "Dismissal of Faculty From Employment Due to Financial Exigency or Discon-tinuance of a Program of Study or a Department of Instruction," generated discussion on a number of issues and did not receive complete agreement from all parties. The Faculty Senate wanted to retain the language in the original policy which provided for 18 month's notification. The proposed policy, however, as indicated in paragraph C.2.c., allows for at least a full academic year's notifica-tion. The proposed language was submitted by the ad hoc committee and approved by the Deans.
A second major area of disagreement pertained to the wording of paragraph C.1.c. The ad hoc committee and the Faculty Senate endorsed wording of the first sentence of that paragraph as follows: "In determining which faculty members will receive notices of dismissal, the Provost shall first dismiss nontenured faculty members in the affected department." However, "department" has been changed to read "program of study." A good argument against using "department" is the example of the foreign languages department, where the programs are fairly distinct. The new language recognizes that several different programs of study may exist in any given department and that faculty in one program may not be fully qualified to teach in an entirely different program within the same department. While the Deans and supported this language, the Faculty Senate and the ad hoc committee (with the exception of one member) did not.
There followed a lengthy discussion on the merits of using "program of study" versus "department." Following this discussion, the Board amended Paragraph C.1.c. of the policy as follows: In the first sentence, the words "or the department of instruction" were stricken from the end of the sentence. In the second sentence, the words "tenured and nontenured" were changed to "tenured or non-tenured."
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously approved:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE ON
DISMISSAL OF FACULTY FROM EMPLOYMENT DUE TO FINANCIAL
EXIGENCY OR DISCONTINUANCE OF A PROGRAM
OF STUDY OR A DEPARTMENT OF INSTRUCTION
RESOLVED, that upon the recommendation of the Provost and the President, the Executive Committee of the Board of Visitors approves the following policy and procedure on Dismissal of Faculty From Employment Due to Financial Exigency or Discontinuance of a Program of Study or a Department of Instruction, effective immediately:
DISMISSAL OF FACULTY FROM EMPLOYMENT DUE TO FINANCIAL
EXIGENCY OR DISCONTINUANCE OF A PROGRAM
OF STUDY OR A DEPARTMENT OF INSTRUCTION
A. General
This policy provides for the dismissal of tenured and non-tenured faculty members from employment due to financial exigency, or the discontinuance of a program of study or department of instruction (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Extraordinary Events.")
B. Authority
Only the Board of Visitors has the authority to dismiss faculty from employment due to Extraordinary Events. Dismissal of faculty shall be conducted according to the procedures provided in this policy.
C. Procedures for the Dismissal of Faculty
a. Upon the completion of the approved university procedures for a determination of financial exigency, or discontinuance of a program of study or department of instruc-tion, the Provost shall determine which faculty members, if any, in the affected programs or depart-ments will receive notices of dismissal.
b. Before deciding to issue notices of dismissal to tenured and nontenured teaching faculty, the Provost shall give due consideration to the reduction of nonfaculty staff and administrators and to faculty reassignment, consistent with the retention of the integrity of the remaining academic programs.
c. In determining which faculty members will receive notices of dismissal, the Provost shall first dismiss nontenured faculty in the affected program of study. Within the categories of tenured or nontenured a criterion based on the quality of an individual's teaching, research and service may be applied to select those to be dis-missed. This policy shall not be used to discriminate against women or minorities.
d. In determining which tenured faculty members will receive notices of dismissal, the Provost shall give due consideration to any recommendation made by the tenured faculty members of the department involved.
e. In the event faculty are dismissed pursuant to this policy, a position may not be offered within a program of study or department of instruction to a new candidate within the specialty of the faculty member dismissed for three years following the effective date of the dismissal without first offering to reinstate the dismissed faculty member. The offer to reinstate shall remain open for a reasonable time.
a. The notice of dismissal provided to a faculty member shall be in writing and shall advise of (1) the terms and effective date of dismissal, (2) the substantive reason(s) for the decision, (3) the procedures followed in arriving at the decision, and (4) the procedures described herein through which a faculty member may seek review of the decision.
b. The effective date for dismissal of a non-tenured faculty member shall be on the expiration date of his or her academic year contract. Notice of dismissal shall be provided not later than December 15 of the same academic year.
c. The effective date for the dismissal of a tenured faculty member shall be on the expiration date of his or her academic year contract. Notice of dismissal shall be provided to the faculty member as soon as possible following the decision of the Provost to dismiss. In no case shall the notice be less than a full academic year.
d. For purposes of this policy, the academic year shall commence on the first day of classes of the fall semester and end on the date of spring commencement at the end of the second semester.
a. A decision to issue a notice of dismissal to a faculty member may be reviewed as described in this section upon the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or upon the grounds that, in making the decision, the Provost deviated material-ly from the policies and procedures of the university. The burden of proof shall be on the faculty member.
b. If a dismissed faculty member requests a review of the decision, the faculty member shall provide a written request to the Provost within fifteen (15) calendar days of the faculty member's receipt of the notice of dismissal. The written request shall describe, with reasonable specificity, the grounds for review.
c. Within seven (7) calendar days after receiving the faculty member's request for review, the Provost shall forward a copy of the request and a copy of the notice of dismissal to the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee with a request that the chair initiate the applicable procedures of the committee.
d. Upon the conclusion of the procedures of the Faculty Grievance Committee and upon the Provost's receipt of the committee's recommendation and report, the Provost shall submit the materials to the President with a recommendation to accept, reject or modify the committee's decision. The President may decide to accept, reject or modify the recommendation of the Provost as the President sees fit. If the President decides to reject or modify the recommendation of the committee, the President must provide reasons in writing, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the materials from the Provost, for that decision, both to the faculty member and the Grievance Committee. Failure to do so within the time provided (unless for good cause) shall be deemed as assent to the committee's decision.
e. If, after receiving the committee's recommendation, the Provost decides to withdraw the notice of dismissal issued to the faculty member, the notice shall be rescinded in writing and the proceedings closed.
f. If, after receiving the Provost's recommendation and the materials, the President affirms the notice of dismissal or if the faculty member does not make a timely request for review, the President shall forward to the Board of Visitors a recommendation that the faculty member be dismissed from university employment in accordance with the terms of the notice.
4. Consideration and Decision by the Board of Visitors
a. During its consideration of a recommendation to dismiss a faculty member, the Board, or an appropriate committee of the Board designated by the Board (hereinafter "the Board"), shall review the record of the case including the recommendations of the Provost, the President and the report of the Faculty Grievance Committee. The Board shall provide the faculty member (or his or her designated representative) and the President (or the President's designated representative) with an opportunity to make a written statement and, if either party should so choose, an oral statement. These statements shall be based upon the record of the case. The Board, in its discretion, may request additional evidence from either party, which shall be disclosed to the other party.
b. Faculty members from the same program of study, department of instruction, or college may make a collective statement before the Board if they should so choose and if desired by the Board.
c. After its consideration of a recommendation to dismiss a faculty member, the Board may decide to accept the recommendation to dismiss the faculty member, alter the terms of the recommendation, or decide not to dismiss the faculty member.
d. The Board shall provide written notification of its decision to the faculty member and to the President within sixty (60) calendar days of its receipt of the President's recommendation.
e. If the Board's decision is not rendered within sixty (60) days as provided in paragraph C.4.d., such failure to act shall be deemed a decision not to dismiss the faculty member.
President Koch presented the following resolution which, upon a motion duly and seconded, was unanimously approved:
REVISION TO THE BOARD OF VISITORS POLICY AND PROCEDURES
ON ACADEMIC RANK AND PROMOTION IN RANK
RESOLVED, that the Executive Committee of the Board of Visitors approves the following revisions to Section II.A.3.b. of the Policy and Procedures on Academic Rank and Promotion in Rank, approved by the Board of Visitors on June 12, 1980 and revised February 24, 1984; June 20, 1985; December 13, 1988 and September 27, 1990. The changes shall be effective immediately.
II.A.3.b. (After Revisions - Revised changes are underlined)
A faculty member of extraordinary merit may be considered for promotion to the rank of full professor before the sixth year as associate professor at Old Dominion University.
II.A.3.b. (Before Revisions)
A faculty member of outstanding merit may be considered for promotion to the rank of full professor during the fifth year as associate professor at Old Dominion University.
Rationale:
In order to be able to reward faculty members that establish strong research and teaching credentials, approval of the proposed changes is recommended. The resulting possibility of early promotion emphasizes merit and de-emphasizes longevity as criteria. This seems to be an appropriate change for the University. The President, the Provost and the Council of Senior Academic Deans concur with the Faculty Senate that time should not be the main determinant of extraordinary merit and thus endorsed the proposed revisions.
RECTOR'S REPORT
Rector Dragas announced that Bill Howell resigned from the Board of Visitors as of February 1. The Governor is expected to appoint his replacement soon. At the end of June, three board members' terms will also expire. Mr. Dragas asked for suggestions of individuals to nominate to the Governor as replacements, keeping in mind that only two women will be on the Board after June 30.
PRESIDENT'S REPORT
Rector Dragas called on President Koch for his report. President Koch apprised the board members of joint efforts between ODU and EVMS. Administrators from both institutions are meeting to discuss future cooperative endeavors.
The State Council of Higher Education acted on several of ODU's program proposals. Approved without qualifications were the M.A. in Linguistics and the B.A. in Speech Pathology/Audiology for initiation in Fall 1992. Deferred until funds are identified to support the program was the Ph.D. in International Studies. SCHEV encouraged Old Dominion University to prepare a full proposal for the M.F.A. in Creative Writing, and discouraged prepara-tion of full proposals for the M.A. in Art Education and the M.A. in Media Arts.
President Koch asked Vice President Kemper to present a legislative update. Ms. Kemper distributed a summary of issues in the higher education budget bill and highlighted issues specific to ODU. She also distributed a list of higher education studies and respon-sibilities assigned to the Council by the 1990 and 1991 General Assembly.
President Koch announced that he expects the Board will be asked to approve very substantial increases in tuition and fees, both for in-state and out-of-state states; however, additional student financial aid may be used only by in-state students. The Univer-sity anticipates an additional 6.5 percent budget cut in August. The administration will present a tuition and fee increase proposal to the Board at the April meeting. He asked Vice President Staneski to comment further on the budget situation.
Mr. Staneski distributed a summary of budget reductions for the 1990-92 biennium and a table of the University's budget based on results of the 1991 General Assembly Session. He noted that the general/non-general fund split has changed from 65/35% to 53/47%, although the total amounts have not changed significantly. Total reductions thus far amoutn to $6.188 million for the current year and $9.222 million for the second year of the biennium, or a total of $15.4 million for the biennium. Considering revenue of $6 million from tuition and fees, the net result is a $9 million or 16% cut. The Governor has until March 23 to approve or veto the budget. The veto override session is scheduled for April 3.
The President also asked Vice President Staneski for a status report on early retirement. Mr. Staneski distributed a chart depicting the numbers of instructional faculty eligible for early retirement under the Governor's plan. 70 individuals (62 of whom are faculty) are eligible for the Gover-nor's early retirement program which requires 50 years of age and 25 years of service to the state. This will not take effect until the 1992-93 fiscal year. Only 50% of the individuals who choose to retire may be replaced, and the institutions must provide justifica-tion for doing so. The Governor's program is a "window" program in that state employees may take advantage of the program for only a certain amount of time. ODU's early retirement program, on the other hand, will be offered indefinitely and will be structured to benefit both the individual faculty member and the University.
President Koch asked Vice President Higgins for a progress report on construction projects. Mr. Higgins reported that $700,000 has been spend on campus beautification projects including a Chandler Hall parking lot, landscaping near the Print Shop, and resurfaced and landscaped lot at 48th and Powhatan. The University has opened bids to improve the athletic zone of campus by Powhatan Avenue. The Visual Arts Center opened during semester break which included $71,000 in landscaping improvements and the New Fine Arts project included $45,000 in structural improvements.
President Koch reported on the search for a men's basketball coach. Despite press reports, no leading candidate has been identified at this time. An open, national search will be conducted, and the University hopes to identify a new coach by the end of the month.
President Koch commented that the Annual Fund Kickoff breakfast was held earlier this month and was attended by three alumni legislators. Vice President Kemper distributed a publication entitled "The University of the 21st Century" which included a pledge card.
NEW BUSINESS
Mrs. Kilgore commended President Koch for his good work during the General Assembly session. Rector Dragas commented that President Koch is highly regarded in Richmond.
With no further business to be discussed, the meeting was adjourned.