Minutes from the Jan. 25 Faculty Senate meeting: 1/01 University Affairs Humanities Medical Center Science & Technology Social Sciences Business Teaching and Students Staff News Cardinal Chronicle In Print and On Air Obituaries Awards On the Move Today's Events Upcoming Events Recreation Academic Calendar Faculty Senate Board of Trustees Speeches Crime Statistics Ph.D. Orals Essays Letters Employment Housing Carpools News Service Resources Press Releases At Stanford Alumni Newsletter Subscriptions Contact Stanford Report

Stanford Report Online
Search
Video Archive
News
People
Events
For the Record
Opinion
Classifieds


Stanford University Home



Stanford Report, January 31, 2001

Faculty Senate minutes

TO THE MEMBERS OF
THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
THIRTY-THIRD SENATE
Report No. 6


SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, JAN. 25


At its meeting on Thursday, January 25, 2001, the Senate of the Academic Council heard reports and took the following actions:

1. Upon recommendation of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, and by unanimous voice vote, approved the initiation of the Interdisciplinary Program in Archaeology and authorized the Executive Committee of the Interdisciplinary Program in Archaeology to nominate candidates for the B. A. degree for a period of five years, from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.

2. Accepted the 1999/2000 Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Computing and Information Systems, as presented by past committee chair Professor Brad Osgood.

SUSAN W. SCHOFIELD

Academic Secretary to the University


MINUTES, JAN. 25


Call to Order

Senate Chair Brad Osgood called the meeting to order at 3:24 p.m. in Room 180 of the Law School. There were 31 voting members, 8 ex-officio members, and a large number of guests in attendance. Osgood welcomed new School of Education Dean Deborah Stipek to her first Senate meeting, and she was greeted with a round of applause.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the January 11, 2000 meeting of Senate XXXIII (SenD#5159) were approved as submitted. The Chair advised that the Memorial Resolution on the agenda was being rescheduled to the next meeting.

Report from the Senate Steering Committee

Osgood thanked those at SLAC for the very successful Senate meeting and tour on January 11th. He joked that if the next Senate "field trip" couldn't be to Hawaii, he might try to arrange for the Athletic Director to take everyone to the Final Four. Osgood informed Senate members that their Fall Quarter discussion on advising had led to the recent activation of the C-US Subcommittee on Residential Education and Advising (S-REA). It had been charged among other things to "develop strategies for faculty mentoring of freshmen and sophomores" and to "plan a program to increase the quality of mentoring at the upper levels." The subcommittee, chaired by Professor Elizabeth Bernhardt, includes faculty members Brad Gregory (History), Lynn Hildemann (Civil and Environmental Engineering), Doug Osheroff (Physics), Senior Lecturer Julie Kennedy (Earth Systems), three students, and three ex-officio staff members. Osgood indicated that Director of Undergraduate Advising Lori White welcomed the assistance of the subcommittee as well as input from any and all faculty members.

The Chair also reported that the Executive Committee of the Planning and Policy Board, consisting of himself and former Senate Chairs Zoback and Efron, had considered suggestions for potential PPB topics, but had decided not to convene PPB starting in the Fall. He said that they anticipated the possibility of PPB being appointed later in the year in connection with the results of the Provost's University Needs Assessment process, and that they welcomed other faculty suggestions. Osgood previewed upcoming Senate agenda items, and reminded everyone of the annual meeting of the Academic Council on March 8th. Vice Provost Bravman asked what purpose was served by the "always empty Action Calendar" on the agenda. The Academic Secretary explained that degrees are conferred quarterly under the Action Calendar, as well as occasional other items, which are to be voted on as presented, without amendment.

Report from the Committee on Committees

CoC Chair Lipsick advised that they had responded to the Provost's request for faculty members to serve on a small, ad hoc committee to review the maternity provisions of the tenure policy. CoC had also begun its regular work of identifying potential members for Fall 2001 vacancies on various committees, he said, and urged faculty members to say yes if asked to serve.

Reports from the President and the Provost

The Provost was absent. President Hennessy reported with relief that he had filled three major administrative positions. He said that "Acting" had been removed from General Counsel Debra Zumwalt's title, following the recommendation of a blue ribbon panel that examined the position. LaDoris Cordell would be assuming the post of Vice Provost and Special Counsel to the President for Campus Relations, Hennessy said, returning to Stanford after 19 years as a Santa Clara County judge. And he announced that Randy Livingston would arrive in mid-March as Chief Financial Officer and Vice President for Business Affairs.

President Hennessy also spoke briefly about the California utilities crisis, explaining that Stanford has a Cogeneration plant, owned and operated by a third party, that provides power to its academic facilities and that sells back excess power into the PG&E grid. "In addition to avoiding rolling blackouts, we are part of the solution rather than part of the problem," he said. The university urges all members of the community to evaluate their usage of electricity and to try to conserve it, making as much power as possible "available to our neighbors and the rest of the state." Hennessy indicated that Stanford's energy usage had gone up steadily for several years, and that dramatic increases in natural gas and electricity prices would probably result in a $5 million hit to the university budget. He encouraged anyone with ideas about ways to conserve energy to contact Chris Christofferson, Associate Vice Provost for Facilities (725-0296). Dean Orr (School of Earth Sciences) and Professor Noll (Economics) joked that Stanford could close down every Friday and get rich by selling electricity at "extortionist prices." Hennessy said that unfortunately the university had a long-term agreement that did not include Stanford sharing in any profits.

Professor Rehm (Drama) advised the Senate of the formation of an informal committee of Senators including himself, Debra Satz, David Abernethy, Rob Polhemus, Yvonne Yarbro-Bejarano, David Palumbo-Liu, Bernie Roth and ASSU President Seth Newton, who wished to meet with the President and the Provost about the Nike contracts with Stanford. He mentioned labor problems at Nike factories, student protests at several universities, a citizen lawsuit supported by California Attorney General Lockyer, and several recent books and articles about college athletics. "All of this puts some pressure on Stanford to justify its continuing to contract with Nike," he said. He also made "a modest proposal" that if Stanford needs money so badly that it has to sell advertising on student athlete uniforms, maybe it ought to approach Nike and Adidas and Reebok and "cut a similar deal" for clothing that all the faculty would wear, like the students. Hennessy reminded everyone that the university does not fund any varsity sports, and that Athletics is stretched to cover its budget commitments since advertising was removed from venues such as Maples Pavilion. He said that he is concerned that corporate sponsorship confuses the notion of amateur sports at the college level, but also recognizes that it is a reality to be contended with. He noted that Nike had kept Stanford apprised of labor issues, and he suggested that engaging with them about such issues might cause them to pay more attention to them. Hennessy asked Rehm and the group to meet with Athletics Director Ted Leland to inform themselves about athletic sponsorship agreements and relevant issues, adding that "we will be happy to meet with any faculty who are concerned." Hennessy noted that he had read the books Rehm mentioned, and recommended the book by William Bowen and James Schulman, The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values

New Interdisciplinary Program in Archaeology (SenD#5149)

Chair Osgood commented that the new interdisciplinary program recommended by the Committee on Undergraduate Studies draws on existing faculty strengths in Classics, Anthropology, and Geology, and reflects considerable student interest. He welcomed C-US Chair Hester Gelber to present the recommendation, along with guests including H&S Associate Dean Russell Berman and Professors Ian Morris (Classics), Ian Hodder (Cultural and Social Anthropology), Gail Mahood (Geological and Environmental Sciences), and John Rick (Anthropological Sciences), all members of the program's executive committee.

Gelber advised that C-US had received a recommendation to initiate the program from the Humanities and Sciences Curriculum Committee and deans. After discussing the degree of support available from the relevant departments, the curriculum, provisions for advising, and the general quality of the program, they found it to be impressive and well thought through, she said. Berman added that H & S firmly supports the proposal, which emanates from the Archaeology Center, funded in 1998/99 by seed money from the President's Fund. He advised that H & S was prepared to provide base budget support as it came to better understand the size of student interest.

Professor Palumbo-Liu (Comparative Literature) offered several comments, including a suggestion that the foreign language requirement should be set at "B" rather than "B minus." He also asked about financial arrangements for required fieldwork, encouraged more of an emphasis on Asia and the Pacific Rim, and suggested that the important course on ethics expand its focus to include "the effects of conquest and imperialism." Co-Directors Morris and Hodder noted that fieldwork is a central part of archaeology. It was being arranged either on the Stanford campus with very low cost to students, or at overseas sites, funded in different ways, but generally not burdening students financially, except perhaps in lost opportunities for summer wages. They agreed that they would very much like to become involved in Asia, "if only we can come up with a couple more faculty billets." Hodder indicated that broad attention to various ethical dimensions of archaeology in the modern world would be explored in his course. Professor Shoven (Economics) said that he believed the Senate should not be in the business of deciding specific grade requirements for courses within a program.

Professor Noll (Economics) commented that he strongly supported the new program, but was disappointed with two aspects of the proposal. First, he expressed the view that core courses should be offered every year, not every other year, given the propensity of Stanford students to have diverse interests and commitments off campus that could lead to scheduling problems in the major. Second, he said it appeared to him that students would be able to fulfill the major without actually acquiring interdisciplinary breadth. He suggested that breadth should be required in both the analytic methods and the skills courses. "I would think that this program might want to produce a new kind of geologist, or a new kind of classicist, or a new kind of anthropologist, who was actually very skilled in those other fields," Noll observed. Mahood said she expects students to be attracted to the program at least in part because of dimensions beyond anthropology, such as earth sciences. She said that the program committee would be thinking about further constraints in the major as student interests become more clear. Hodder assured Noll that the notion of breadth was firmly imbedded in the faculty's vision for the program, even if it did not come through in the description. Gelber noted that C-US had explored similar concerns, and was satisfied that the student advising process would strongly guide students to make appropriate choices within the major.

The following motion, moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, was approved by voice vote without dissent:

The Senate approves the initiation of the Interdisciplinary Program in Archaeology and authorizes the Executive Committee of the Interdisciplinary Program in Archaeology to nominate candidates for the B. A. degree for five years effective September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.

1999/2000 Annual Report from the Committee on Academic Computing and Information Systems (SenD#5123)

Senate Chair Brad Osgood, having served as the 1999/2000 chair of C-ACIS, handed the gavel to the Academic Secretary and stepped forward to present the committee's report. Osgood identified and thanked committee members and staff, and indicated that C-ACIS over the years "cycles through" discussion of basic computing issues such as infrastructure, the network and its support, administrative computing, general computing support, and network security. He explained that for C-ACIS and the other six Academic Council committees, important things often happen not as formal committee actions, but rather as a result of the senior administrative officers who serve ex-officio being responsive to faculty viewpoints and going away and "getting things done." Osgood summarized the main themes of the prior year, emphasizing departmental computing support and "computing as a public good." He provided some striking statistics concerning the extent of computing equipment requiring some level of support at Stanford: roughly 60,000 desktop machines (60% PC, 30% Mac, 10% Unix); 516 subnets with 50,000 nodes; and more than 100% growth in web pages and 1,000% growth in disk space between 1994 and 1998. The committee had considered two alternative models for "computing as a public good," he said -- the library model (centrally funded, shared resources) versus the utilities model (charges for services based on usage). Osgood noted that this was a large topic, complicated by the significant variations among departments, and that discussions were ongoing in C-ACIS this year.

Professor Paul Segall, C-ACIS Chair for 2000/2001, advised that the committee was dividing its agenda by quarter, focusing on teaching, then research, then additional issues. He mentioned that as part of the Provost's needs assessment process, a subcommittee was looking at long-term infrastructure needs for academic computing, and hoped that as many faculty members as possible would respond to a survey to be distributed in February. Segall said that in addition to the ten-year horizon of the needs assessment process, C-ACIS hoped to prioritize some more immediate needs, and welcomed faculty input.

Professor Papanicolaou (Mathematics) expressed concern about increases in licensing costs for the MatLab software that were affecting a large number of faculty members in sciences and engineering. He urged C-ACIS to take a leadership role in solving the problem. Segall mentioned that an ITSS staff member, Pat Box, was in charge of software licensing and was attempting to negotiate with the company. Professor Noll (Economics) said he sees C-ACIS as having a very small net and chasing after a big elephant, and he questioned whether they could ever be particularly effective. Osgood stressed the role of C-ACIS in oversight and as a faculty sounding board, and others mentioned specific policies and actions in the past few years that had resulted from the committee's work. Professor Tatum (Civil and Environmental Engineering) expressed the view of several faculty members that information infrastructure has become "as important as clean air and clean water" and urged C-ACIS to advocate for current investments to ensure long-term infrastructure adequacy. It was agreed, at the suggestion of Professor Roth (Mechanical Engineering), that the annual report should be corrected to spell out all acronyms. The Academic Secretary accepted the 1999/2000 Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Computing and Information Systems on behalf of the Senate, and thanked the committee for its work.

Report on Staff Retention and Recruitment (SenD#5158)

Chair Osgood introduced John Cammidge, Executive Director of Human Resources, to report on staff retention and recruitment issues, a topic of real interest to many faculty members. Cammidge, at Stanford for eight months, advised that he wanted to present and explain a good deal of data, provided to Senate members in advance, and to invite all members of the faculty to take an increased involvement in the well-being of staff.

Summarizing data concerning staff turnover at Stanford, Cammidge advised that Stanford's "separation rate" (primarily voluntary departures, but also including layoff, dismissal, retirement and death) is now 25.5% per year, up from 10.6% in 1996. The Stanford rate mirrors that in Silicon Valley, he said, but the national average is only 12-14%. Concerning total compensation competitiveness, according to Cammidge, Stanford benefits are very competitive, base compensation is generally competitive at the middle of the Bay Area marketplace, and incentive compensation is less competitive. He advised that the highest separation rates are occurring in the academic areas, and said that a consultant had quantified the cost of turnover at up to $68 million annually. The causes of Stanford turnover, he said, include the Silicon Valley labor market, income pressures (cost of living, housing, better paid opportunities), lack of career progression, and issues with supervision and recognition.

Continuing to summarize key information, Cammidge pointed out that even though the number of staff vacancies had doubled since 1996, Stanford had continued to operate with a decentralized recruitment process. He also noted that existing supportive programs are not always used, for example incentive pay, flexible scheduling, access to recreation, quality of work life, and transportation opportunities. Support is not consistent across the university for performance management and career development, he said. He also emphasized that Stanford turnover is influenced by bureaucratic, inefficient work processes, poorly designed or boring jobs, and job complexity without adequate training. The bottom line, according to Cammidge -- "Our Silicon Valley environment is a challenge. Nevertheless, we can do more to retain and recruit the staff employees who support Stanford's teaching and research activities."

Cammidge presented pie charts showing a total of 13,600 Stanford employees, including hourly and temporary workers (but excluding the Hospitals). Of that number, 6,200 are in ongoing staff positions (excluding SLAC, for which he did not have data but for which he said the recruitment and retention problems were very similar). He showed separation rates for Stanford's 15 schools and administrative units, speculating that the highest separation rates were in the academic areas "not because of the faculty," but because the percentage of lower level, primarily administrative staff positions is higher there. Cammidge said that Stanford's internal movement rate of only 7% should be much higher -- people advancing and building careers at the university -- and that everyone would of course like to have significantly fewer than 25% leaving Stanford. Data also show that the lower the salary, the higher the turnover, he noted, reflecting cost of living pressures. Cammidge expressed concern that employees with three to five years of university service have the highest separation rates (34%) and attributed this in part to pay compression. Stanford may pay too many people close to the average without differentiating enough, he suggested.

Discussing staff base salary competitiveness within the Bay Area job market, Cammidge said that Stanford's overall position was 1.1% above market, and showed a slide with seven job families above market, one by almost 10%, and three job families below market. The specific job categories were not labeled due to confidentiality issues concerning the sources, Cammidge said. In response to questions from Education Dean Stipek and Professor Satz (Philosophy), he indicated that higher separation rates were not necessarily correlated with below market salary rates, and reiterated his concern that relatively uniform salary administration was causing Stanford to lose its best people. Cammidge presented data on the number of open positions -- 638 in August 2000, almost double the number four years earlier -- and indicated that "there are more job vacancies, it is taking longer to fill them, there are fewer candidates, and in some cases it is difficult to find qualified candidates." He also showed a slide listing the factors cited by about 350 people in a Fall 1999 survey asking why they joined Stanford, stayed at Stanford, and left Stanford.

Moving beyond the data to ask "What lies ahead?" Cammidge described a strategic vision of Stanford as an "employer of choice" for staff. "Anything that touches on the staff employee relationship ought to be of concern to Human Resources," he stated. Assuming that all of the basic personnel functions must be well executed, he identified areas in which Stanford might strive to differentiate itself externally -- quality of the work environment, learning opportunities, housing assistance opportunities, and work/life cycle programs -- as well as areas of internal differentiation -- career opportunities/talent management/meaningful work, competitive total compensation, management and supervisory leadership (including faculty), and the Stanford community/diversity. Looking ahead 12 to 18 months, Cammidge expressed optimism about institutional sponsorship to support a series of prioritized projects involving Human Resources and user representatives as well as improved HR systems and support, all geared toward "getting the right staff, treating them well, and keeping them." He mentioned several items from a list of priority projects with sponsorship, including a review of staff housing needs and possible solutions (looking at the Stanford West apartments, and perhaps a 403(b) loan product); a new employee referral program patterned after very successful Silicon Valley programs; and an ongoing study of childcare affordability scholarships.

Cammidge discussed several additional items from a list of potential priority projects. He asked for faculty feedback about the feasibility of increasing meaningful work by reviewing work processes, job design, delegated authorities, and organizational structures within schools and departments. He also suggested that the decentralization of the employment function in the early 1990s should be revisited, in order to develop a Stanford "employment brand" and to provide central recruitment support for hard to fill jobs. Finally, he asked whether the faculty wanted to be involved in the solutions. For example, he wondered if the Faculty Staff Benefits Committee should be broadened to include all human resources issues. "The basic message for me is really an invitation to you to become a 'stakeholder' in the well-being of Stanford's 6,500 staff members," Cammidge concluded.

Professor Zoback (Geophysics) suggested that reconsideration of the recent reduction in the child tuition grant benefit, which he thought had saved the university one or two million dollars per year, might make a significant dent in the 25% rate and the $68 million cost of turnover. Cammidge agreed that education and training benefits in general should be evaluated, including that item as well as the new and underutilized program to reimburse staff members themselves for college tuition. Any such programs that can be designed to benefit employees directly, before taxes, are very valuable, he said.

Professor Noll (Economics) commented that he did not believe that changes in Stanford salaries and benefits over the past ten years were anywhere near as important as two other major changes: increased administrative accountability (due to the indirect cost controversy) and computerization. "There is infinitely greater accountability for everything you do, which means there's a lot more work to do. And, secondly, computerization has been used as a mechanism to decentralize the cost of undertaking that activity from the central administration to the academic and research units. The proportion of the work that's done locally has been increased with no change in classification level and no change in the number of staff. As a result, the amount of time has gone way up that department administrative staff spend proving they're not criminals or satisfying some distant person that they never can talk to because they only have voice mail. And if you just talk to these people, they'll tell you that's why they don't like their jobs." The faculty in departments also feels these things, e.g., trying to get reimbursed for travel or to spend their grant money, Noll said, but they have no real way to judge how much of the increasing complexity is absolutely required, or how much might have been overreacting to external circumstances. H & S Dean Beasley said that he agreed to some extent but also felt that the faculty could play a significant role in reexamining the administrative structures in their own departments and schools. Professor Wooley (Electrical Engineering) agreed with Noll that staff had a particularly miserable job arranging for travel and reimbursement. President Hennessy cautioned that the faculty often do not read the rules and the difficult task of telling them "You can't do this," falls to the staff.

Professor Tatum (Civil and Environmental Engineering) commented that rules concerning equity with existing employees were one of the most difficult challenges in hiring new people. Responding to Wooley, Cammidge indicated that the data presented to Senate was public and could be shared with department staff. He said that he would be delighted to come to departments to discuss the issues, and Senate Chair Osgood encouraged him to do so. Osgood thanked Cammidge for a thoughtful presentation.

Obtaining a motion and a second, Osgood declared the Senate meeting adjourned at 5:13 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Susan W. Schofield

Academic Secretary to the University