Called to order at 4:20 pm by Chair, Virginia Samuel

Attending were Virginia Samuel, Louise Temple, Tom Kean,
Paolo Cucchi, Cathy Messmer, Karen Prentiss, John Lenz, Tom
Christofferson, Roxanne Friedenfels, Denise Alleyne, Wendy
Kolmar, Ann Salzman, Matthew Diamond, Gunner Vaghasia, Pam
Snelson, Bernie Van De Walle, Matthias Beier, Steve Surace,
Dorene Isenberg, Nicky Ollman, Norman Lowrey, Maria
Pasqualino, Matt Light, and Valerie Mehlig-Curry.

 The agenda of the meeting was approved.  The minutes of the
May 6, 1997 meeting were changed on page 6, paragraph 3, to
read Zach Rothchild instead of Matt Light.  The minutes were
then approved as corrected.  Louise Temple was elected
secretary.  After introductions by attendees, Paolo Cucchi
noted that the "at large" CLA faculty slot previously held
by Wendy Kolmar will be filled at November CLA faculty
meeting.

The ChairUs Report
Ginny Samuel presented an overview of the Senate and the
goals for this academic year.  The steering committee,
consisting of the University President, Senate Chair,
secretary, CLA student, alternating graduate and theology
school representative, alternating library and USA
representative, is mandated by the 1987 constitution, which
is still in effect.  Our new library director will attend
the December meeting, when we will hear her ideas and views
of the future.  Mike McKitish will also be invited to speak
and answer questions about the budget process.  Jay
Angeletti will bring us up to date on the Capital Campaign.
Our constitution is out of date; a new version was prepared
last year and sent to each University division, but was not
approved by all.  The Senate will receive reports from the
standing committees during the year and will serve as an
arena for conversation about important University matters.
Representatives will then give feedback to each of our
various constituencies.

Senate Committee Reports: (began because President Kean
wasnUt present yet; he was attending the reception for our
new Library Director, Diedre Stam).

Wendy Kolmar: Sexual Harrassment Committee report. The
report detailed anonymously the work of the committee over
the past year.  It included the number of contacts made to
the committee, the number of formal and informal hearings
the committee has had, and the ongoing educational work of
the committee.  The CLA orientation program was attended by
350 or so of new students.  D. Alleyne commented that it was
very well done. The program included Katie Kestner speaking
on acquaintance rape.  P. Snelson inquired about new staff
being oriented. W. Kolmar said, yes, new staff receive
policy with explanations, but since all don't arrive at
once, the orientation program needs coordination.  The
committee is looking into making the program available to
those persons who might have missed it in the past.  P.
Cucchi asked if the policy  overall needs to be looked at
and is the committee happy with it.  W. Kolmar said, yes it
is working.   The committee heard resoundingly from some
complainants and those complained against, who both felt
well served by the process.  The committee has been talking
about publishing, in addition to the policy, a booklet with
definitions of harrassment and rape, and interpretation of
technology issues.  Interpretations of policy evolves as
issues are raised by the community.  K. Brown asked how the
orientation was done.  W. Kolmar explained.  G. Samuel
commented that it is always enlightening to see new issues
which arise, particularly in the area of technology.  Rapid
changes present the biggest challenge.  She added that the
community should be very proud of committee people, who
wrestle with delicate, sensitive issues with poise, insight,
and dedication to justice.  W. Kolmar noted that the
majority of committee work involved two student complainants
and that much of the work was done by the students on
committee.

The President's Report
President Kean's report began with commendation for the
library  director selection committee.  He then reminisced
at bit, looking at where we have come, from a difficult
period in the early 90's, running a budget deficit, with the
student body not happy (sometimes with good reason), and
faculty not happy either.  He noted that Drew now is moving
up in ratings.  Even with the decision not to change
standards, we are now flourishing, with high SAT scores,
more applicants than before, and the endowment close to
double.  DrewUs future looks only bright.  We are competing
for students with new schools, winning some.  But we are not
there yet, with competitors having double the endowment and
with higher faculty salaries and better facilities.  We've
put 30 million into facilities in last 5 years).  We must
look at what we need to do to get to the next level.  The
community spent 2 years when Kean first came working on
mission statement and there were long debates on the
strategic plan.  We need to operate from top down.  The
trustees are meeting to talk about the amount of money we
will be able to raise as a community.  It will probably be
double what we've been able to raise in the past.  The next
couple of years will be a determining period.  We need
everyone to help.  The trustees must "dig deeper" but we are
off to a good start.  But, we are tuition dependent because
of the level of the endowment.  Too much of scholarship
money comes out of operating budget and there too few funded
faculty chairs.  There is not enough money for ongoing
faculty/staff increases.  The capital campaign should
increase endowment to take care of more of these things.
        President Kean pointed out the face lift of the library and
noted that Bound theater reconstruction is ahead of
schedule!  Alumni and development have moved back into 120
Madison Ave, which thus far has no roof leaks.  He noted the
new lighted signs which were part of the gift of last year's
graduating class.  He has heard good things from students
about food services.
        The lecture series was noted as an ongoing problem.  We
have been successful in increasing DrewUs visibility with
lecture series.  However, the sponsoring organization (BET)
went bankrupt last year.  We sponsored Perez and Rabin last
year; however, attendance not as good with two people with
essentially the same message.  We are looking for corporate
sponsorship.  Down side of this approach is that the company
will give money only for certain speakers.  The series must
be break even or be profit making.  He is talking to
corporations and speakers for this year.
        The Presidential Planning Commission will be looking at
admissions in all three schools (the philosophy, how
successful, etc.) and University publications.  Also, the
PPC will continue to monitor strategic plan enactment.
        The President mentioned pride in and appreciation for the
community response to Ryan Fraytic's accident.  We were
supportive to him and his family.  His family appreciated
all the support and found it unbelievable.
        Regarding the Capital Campaign, Kean can't answer specific
questions until trustees have met.  We have to ask for an
amount that can be reached; it's ok to stretch, but not to
be unrealistic.  He cautioned that as we set priorities, it
doesn't mean we will get these specific items, since donors
can designate how their gifts are used.
        D. Alleyne commented that there was a nice letter from
Ryan's parents complimenting the Drew community for support
and including a donation to the school.
        G. Samuel asked how the Senate might assist in some way in
capital campaign.  President Kean said that Jay Angeletti
will be in contact regarding any role we might play.

        Returning to committee reports:   The Senate voted to
approve the report of the Committee on Sexual Harrassment.

Senate Committee Reports (continued)
Nicky Ollman: Committee on Faculty report.   N.Ollman
suggested that "taking Drew to new levels" might be the
subtitle of her report.  This year's (96-97) report contains
both good news and bad news.  The final 50% of equity
adjustments were distributed in 96-97.  There was an upward
turn in full professor salaries in relation to median in
various lists.  Now after the final installment, full
professors are still up and associate professors are
starting to have upward turn.  Areas of concern include (1.)
This is end of equity adjustment and no new moneys are
planned to continue moving toward the median in any
category, and (2.)  In the data we see assistant professors,
who were not much affected by equity adjustments, have been
declining.  This further decline in absolute numbers is due
to the way the average is being calculated by Drew.  (We
formerly calculated only full time tenure track salaries,
whereas to match other schools, we should be calculating all
full-time faculty; 96-97 data was the latter).  Since it is
a lower figure than before, the comparative standing
dropped.  The number is now a comparable number and more
accurately shows a problem we didn't know about before.
Another factor, the compression ratio, has gone down in last
three years, possibly may be due to the lower number
calculated for assistant professors.  Data is based on
comparison with more than 60 schools and is divided into 5
lists.  Data is given in dollar figures and also in real
wages (more recent deflated to match earlier years).
        N. Ollman was asked if there was any attempt to distinguish
or separate the schools? Answer:  No
        T. Kean asked, when you compare to other schools, do you
take into account schools with law schools, etc., in which
certain faculty receive much high salaries? Answer:  this
issue only appears with the all NJ schools and does not
apply to schools on our comparison list.
        N. Ollman highlighted tables and summarized data as
described above.  The committee is concerned that there is
not money designated for making further adjustments.  There
is major concern that there is no plan nor a policy that
would shape a plan  for addressing continuing issues of
faculty salary improvement.  Recalling that equity
adjustments were only one part of the PPC and Committee on
Faculty guidelines, the committee report reminds us that a
second part was a proposed annual faculty salary increase of
RCPI-plusS to provide more than basic maintenance for DrewUs
lower-than-average comparative faculty salary standings

        Discussion followed on the equity plan.  Salaries were out
of alignment.  A policy and money were designated to realign
over three years.  The goal was to fix internal equity
problems, then all salaries can move up together.   N.
Lowery asked if the equity problem was solved for full
professors.  N.Ollman:  We are no longer seeing an equity
issue.  We are close to having equalized salaries based on
92-93 figures.  P.Cucchi:  the pool of money is limited.
With increases more to associates and full professors, now
assistants may look less well off, while the others look a
little better.  N.Ollman:  We need to enlarge the pool so
that meaningful changes can be made.  S. Samuels:  Where are
the guidelines referred to in committee report?  N.Ollman:
No guidelines except in this document.  CPI might just be
cost of living raise and won't move us forward.  We need
CPI-plus and we should establish this.  Should we set a goal
of being at median of such lists?  T. Kean:  at other
schools, the money for salaries and benefits is from one
pot.  It is possible to increase one or the other.  However,
at Drew, salaries and benefits come from separate pots of
money.  N.Ollman:  since many benefits are tied to salary,
i.e. investments, so that when salaries are raised, benefits
also go up, therefore, we must increase both pots of money.
P.Cucchi:  Expenses and Allocation committee has asked the
Senate for recommendations on salaries and benefits.
A.Salzman:  benefits committee hasn't done this study.
T.Kean:  Senate makes recommendation, but budget committee
has to look at all requests.  N.Ollman:  the committee
report is designed to give numbers as a recommendation.
Report approved.  D.Isenberg:  moved that recommendation not
only be sent, but also the report be presented to the
Expense and Allocation Committee.  N.Lowery seconded.
Approved. N.Ollman:  Back to formula (CPI-plus): where
should this recommendation go?  N.Lowery moved:  Send
forward to PPC and request the PPC take it up. D.Isenberg
seconded.  Approved.

Ann Salzman:  Report of Benefits Committee.  She accepted
position to work on long-term adjunct problems.  However,
today's report applies to tuition exchange/benefits program,
particularly as it applies to part-time faculty and staff.
The benefit has changed to be 42% of Drew's or other school.
The change created some problems, especially since the
decision didn't go through the benefits committee. No
comparison report was obtained and should probably be done.
This report recommends that benefits should extend to
long-time adjunct faculty/staff.  "Community" is a key word
in making the recommendation.  The report defines long-term,
part time faculty as those who are important contributing
members of community, who add to academic integrity, etc.
AAUP defines different types of adjuncts.  The
recommendation is to extend the benefits to (1) any
part-time faculty member who has taught a minimum of 40
courses over a 10 year period of continuous employment and
(2) any part-time staff member who has worked a minimum of
20 hours per week over a 10 year period of continuous
employment.  This change would apply to one person this year
and one next and thus is not a big financial investment.
This report was accepted at the February, 1997, meeting.
N.Lowery: moved to send report to budget committee with our
affirmation.  R.Friedenfels: Second.  Approved.
        W.Kollmar opened discussion of problems when tuition
benefits were changed without being taken through
appropriate channels.  Various voices suggested that
coordination between the budget committee and benefits
committee was lacking, there is tension between salary
increases and benefits, the timetable causes some problems
in decision making, thus the process needs to start earlier
so that decisions can be made in a logical order.  W.Kollmar
summarized, saying we need mechanism for looking at
compensation for both faculty and staff; need to facilitate
arrival at creditable report without overworking anyone.
N.Lowery said that the thrust of this discussion is having
more coordination between budget and benefits committees.
The situation arose where a committee which should have had
input did not.  We must have clarification of the
relationship between benefits and budget and salary
committees.

Old Business
Paolo Cucchi:  Update from student life task force.  Three
types of recommendations emerged from this task force.
        The first group can be implemented immediately and involve
no budget changes.  These include changes in titles of
offices or individuals, reporting structure, etc.  Also,
suggestions of better definition of offices' mission,
coordination of responsibilities, how they can interact more
regularly and in a smoother fashion are being put into
effect.  Web pages for student life, brochures etc., are
being developed.
        A second group of recommendations have budgetary
implications, such as appointment of international student.
That position is a priority in the student life task force
report.  Others, such as lounges and study spaces. will
appear in form of requests.
        A third group merits further discussion and evaluation.
The expectations of the Associate Dean of Student Life
include coordination of co-curricular and international
student life.  More coordination among offices is needed.
Quite a bit has already happened since May, and reports will
be brought to PPC periodically.
        D.Alleyne:  Budget preparation has been "fun"  since budget
justifications were already done.  She reports good
discussions with cabinet and hopefully with trustees on
items in recommendations, which are divided into low, medium
and high cost items.  To articulate the goals of student
life in a clear way, first they changed the handbook.
Having a mission statement and knowing who department
members are has helped her department focus on goals.  Some
brochures were produced by various departments with their
own mission statements, for example,  health services,
intramurals, etc.  Leadership training was held in September
in the form of a retreat open to all students.  The first
day was successful and some goals were achieved.  The second
day was not so well attended, indicating that it should be
done in one day.  A leadership training will be held next
week in "How to advertise activities and get people to
come".  In co-curricular programming, E.Lawler is working
with staff to coordinate activities, guest speakers.  The
alumni office is also working with her.  D. Alleyne
appreciated the opportunity to look at the department,
review, and make some changes.  She feels they are on a roll
in the direction they want to go.  Currently they are
looking at handbook for graduate and theological school
students.  They hope to take information already available,
combine it with university  information and produce a new
handbook.  The question of destination of the Student Life
Task Force Report was addressed:  this was requested and
received by the PPC.

New Business
Presidential Planning Commission:  Jonathan Reader:  This
fall, the PPC will review admission policies in three
schools, starting this Thursday.  In the Spring, they will
review University publications.  Yearlong duties include
monitoring the strategic planning for the CLA, GS, TS,
technology, student life, and library.

Next meeting:  Tuesday, Dec. 9, 1997, 4:15pm, Founders Room
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15pm

Respectfully submitted,

Louise Temple, Secretary

Return to Senate Homepage