Faculty Senate minutes - February 7, 2008 meeting
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, FEB. 7
At its meeting on Thursday, February 7, 2008, the Fortieth Senate of the Academic Council took the following action:
By unanimous vote, the Senate voted that an ad hoc committee will be convened to examine nonacademic council appointment processes, including the use of honorific titles at Stanford, and will report results and recommendations to the Faculty Senate..
REX L. JAMISON Academic Secretary to the UniversityMinutes, FEB. 7
I. Call to OrderThe Chair, Professor Eamonn Callan, called the Senate to order at 2:20 PM. In attendance were 30 voting members and 10 ex officio members.
II. Approval of Minutes - (SenD#6032)The minutes of the January 24, 2008 meeting of Senate XL were approved.
III. Action CalendarThere were no items.
Before the meeting, Professor David Spiegel was recognized.
Professor Spiegel announced with regret that he had just learned of the death this day of Dr. Steven Leibel, Professor of Radiation Oncology and Radiation Therapy and the Ann and John Doerr Medical Director of the Stanford Cancer Center.
At the invitation of Chair Callan, all present stood in silent tribute.
IV. Standing ReportsA. Steering Committee
Chair Callan summarized recent work of the Steering Committee (StC). It has rearranged some previously scheduled items, as follows:
On February 21, 2008, Dean Richard Saller will present a report on the School of Humanities and Sciences and the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy will request Senate approval to allow the Introduction to the Humanities program to conduct an experimental project for a three year period.
On March 6, the Senate will hear a report on the NCAA re-certification. Following that report it will reconvene in the Law School Lounge to meet in Executive Session for a special report.
On May 1, the Committee on Research will report on a research project announced last year that Stanford University will lead the Army High Performance Computing and Research Center consortium. Professor Pat Jones, Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity, will present the annual report on Faculty Gains & Losses, Recruitment & Retention and an update on the Status of Women Faculty.
On May 15 th at a brief Senate meeting prior to the Annual Academic Council meeting, Hester Gelber, Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies, will present a report on Area One of the General Education Requirements.
The remaining two meetings of the 40th Senate will include the Provost's Budget report and a report from the Dean of Admissions.
Chair Callan invited questions for the StC. There were none.
B. Committee on Committees
The CoC had no report.
C. President's and Provost's Report
The president had no report. He offered to take questions, but there were none.
The provost had no report. He said he would also be glad to answer questions "...whose answers I know."
D. Senate Forum (SenD#6049)
Chair Callan recognized Professor Spiegel at his request to make an announcement.
As a member of the Stanford Cancer Center, Professor Spiegel announced the availability of internal funds for pilot awards of $50,000 each involving cancer research--the Developmental Cancer Research Awards in Translational and Population Science. The objective of these awards is to establish collaborations between medical school faculty and Stanford faculty outside the medical school. The goal of the awards is the development of high quality interdisciplinary research projects in cancer prevention and control, clinical and translational [meaning "bench-to-beside" applications] research, epidemiology and other relevant fields. Projects with special emphasis on racial, ethnic, cultural or other groups with an unequal burden of cancer are particularly encouraged. Further information on the grants is available on
A. Report on Faculty, Student and Staff Housing (SenD#6050)
Chair Callan welcomed Robert Reidy, Vice President, Land, Buildings and Real Estate, and Jan Thomson, Director of the Office of Faculty, Staff Housing, to present a report on plans for faculty, staff and student housing.
With the aid of slides, Mr. Reidy began his presentation.
A basic principle that Stanford University strongly believes is that the residential character of an academic campus is important. Stanford is a residential college but we also know that not everyone is going to live on campus.
The core campus was the focus of today's presentation. It is the area bounded by Junipero Serra Boulevard, Page Mill Boulevard, El Camino Real, and (roughly) Sand Hill Road or San Francisquito Creek.
Overview
Currently, the university has 6,349 undergraduates of whom 96% are housed on campus, 8,186 graduate students (65%), 1,829 active faculty (35%) and 9,821 staff (4%). Other persons housed on campus include 73 visiting scholars and fellows, 289 retirees or surviving spouses and 37 other non-affiliated persons.
Mr. Reidy reviewed the growth of housing on the campus since the founding of the university, showing slides of a map of the campus every 20 years since 1900, with housing structures marked in black relief. By 2000, the pattern changes in that growth starts to consist of "infill" [the use of land within a built-up area for further construction, especially as part of a community redevelopment or growth management program]. Land resources are becoming more precious and housing on the core campus starts to consume more land. In the most recent period between 2000 and 2008 there has been a housing "evolution" with a total of 1,552 additions, including 628 units comprising "Stanford West".
During the first 100 years, about 115 units per year were added. In the last eight years it increased to 200 units per year.
Mr. Reidy stressed that, given that infill is a big part of what's going to happen in the future, it is very important how one plans the new housing to make sure one gets adequate open space and doesn't create an urban environment where one can't take advantage of the beautiful vistas and the open space that we now have.
Current status by type of residence:
Undergraduates: 3,741 beds in traditional residence halls, like Roble Hall (61%); 1,713 in Row Houses, like Dolores House (28%); 435 in apartments, like Mirrielees (7%); and 240 in suites (4%). Note this does not include 400 undergraduates who are overseas.
Graduate students: 3,994 beds in shared low and mid/high rise apartments (75%), 863 in studio apartment spaces (16%), 27 in residential hall spaces (5%) and 220 in the Schwab Residential Center (4%).
Faculty and staff: 736 apartment units (46% of total units); 652 single family homes (40%) and 222 condominiums (14%).
The General Use Permit (GUP) allows Stanford to construct 2000 net new student housing units, 350 net new housing units for postdoctoral fellows and medical residents, and 668 net new housing units for faculty and staff. An important linkage is required: For every 500,000 gross square feet addition of academic development, 605 new housing units must be created.
The density (units/acre) of housing is distributed as follows:
Low density (5-8 units/acre) R1S zone, along Stanford Avenue [see below].
Medium density (8 - 15 units/acre) R2S zone, at the site where the stable and driving range are located and zoned R2S.
Academic campus (15 or more units/acre) for faculty and staff units not in RS zones.
Current Active Projects
1. Munger Graduate Residences. These are premium single units in suites for graduate students. There will be 600 new units including 242 studio units, 18 one-bedroom units; 30 two-bedroom units and 70 four bedroom units.
2. Olmsted Road Staff Rental Housing. This area is located between Escondido Village and Palo Alto next to El Camino Real. The size is 3 acres and density, 7.4 units/acre, with a total of 22 two-story units. Each unit contains 3 bedrooms (7 with a den also). The original site has been reduced in size to accommodate the new East Campus Child Care Center and will be set back from El Camino Real by 50 feet to form a buffer.
3. Faculty Housing at Stanford Avenue. For this topic, Mr. Reidy turned to Jan Thomson.
Much discussion focused on this plan. The first homes will be available in 2010. Ms. Thomson described the serious problem that the university faces—to find homes for its new faculty. While housing in the surrounding area is extremely expensive, it is also expensive on campus. The average price of homes sold on campus last year was $1.76 million. Only 35% of the active faculty live on the campus and only 28% own their homes.
The goals of faculty housing at Stanford Avenue are:
--Support faculty recruitment and retention.
--Increase the number of active faculty living on campus.
--Satisfy faculty requirements for housing.
--Ensure on-going affordability.
--Provide an acceptable rate of turnover.
A survey of faculty 2002-2003 was performed by a committee and faculty members are continuing to help, particularly Professors Pat Jones, Jonathan Berger, Steve Monismith and Gabriella Safran. The inquiry revealed these key requirements by the faculty:
--Single family homes
--Good school district
--Close to campus
--3-4 bedrooms, with study
--Affordable
With these guidelines in mind, Ms. Thomson described the Stanford Avenue project. It's a long strip of land that runs from El Camino up to Escondido Road situated between the Escondido Village and College Terrace neighborhoods. Today, it's not the most appealing building site, because a large drainage ditch runs down the middle of the site. But that ditch will be filled in and the water diverted. It consists of 6.7 acres that will contain 39 single detached family homes, a density of 5.8 units/acre--something akin to that of Ryan Court. Each home will have 3-4 bedrooms, a study, 2.5 baths and a two-car garage. The size of the home will vary from 1850 to 2300 square feet on a 3,500 to 5000 square foot lot. There will be extra parking spaces. The driveways will be shared and accessed from Olmsted Road.
To make the homes affordable, we are taking a page from the University of California system, particularly the Universities of Irvine and Santa Barbara—and also Santa Clara University—all of which have successful affordable housing plans. The homes will be sold at the cost of construction of the home and the proportional cost of the project (e.g., site preparation, permitting, etc.). The value of the land will not be included. This will reduce the cost of the down payment, which is often a difficult obstacle, and the amount of the mortgage.
The problem is--How do we sustain this into the future? How do we avoid what happens when the first faculty member who gets this wonderful bargain years later sells the home at market price, and the next faculty member is stuck with unaffordable housing. The answer: We will arrange an agreement between the owner and the university that will enable the university to buy the home back at a capped appreciation to ensure future affordability. According to Ms. Thomson this has worked very well at Irvine, which has a long list of faculty who would like to get into that housing.
The ground lease is a major issue. We have to have a totally different lease. A new ground lease structure is under consideration with the following rationale and options:
--Targeted eligibility, for example, first refusal to a faculty member who doesn't yet own a home in the area.
-- Leases on the campus today are open-ended, meaning that when the lease you have expires, you renew another one. For the Stanford Avenue project there will be a fixed-term lease, nonrenewable. Ms. Thomson said her office was still working on the details of that lease plan.
--Limits on residency for retirees and surviving spouses.
Ms. Thomson turned the floor back to Mr. Reidy who described three proposed future housing projects in the early stages of planning.
Future Projects
1. Upper California and El Camino Real Sites.
The Upper California site is 17 acres located along California Avenue just west of Hanover Street and near the Peter Coutts homes. The El Camino Real site is 1.8 acres between the Olmstead Road site and Hanover Street. Stanford must submit development plans for some of these units by 2013.
2. Quarry Road Proposed Sites [two sites].
These two sites are along Quarry Road and on either side of the Hoover Pavilion. In the present GUP, 200 units are assigned for the Quarry-Arboretum site and 150 for Quarry-El Camino site. Site density could be and may be increased beyond the total of 350 units, given that the adjacent shopping center has an application to the City of Palo Alto to add retail, hotel, and parking. Also, the School of Medicine and medical center hospitals have a plan, now under review by the City of Palo Alto, for a substantial replacement and expansion of their facilities. As Mr. Reidy put it, where you have together a retail node, a transportation hub (train station), and substantial medical center employment, and amply Arboretum open space, then you have an excellent opportunity for higher density housing.
3. Quillen proposed new site.
This site is located on Quillen road near Campus Drive West in front of the
Quillen building. The site will have units intended for graduate students.
Mr. Reidy concluded, "We have a continued commitment towards housing…We're happy that we can actually get this done and still fit it within and support what Stanford's vision has been from the beginning. There's a great tradition of doing that."
Questions
Chair Callan opened the floor for questions.
Professor Karen Cook was the first to comment. "You proposed at the Stanford Avenue Housing site…that the homes will have fixed lease, nonrenewable…for the land…What are the implications?"
Jan Thomson replied, "We now have a fixed-term lease for 51 years. But the leases today are renewable. So you could obtain leases lasting 102 years. For this [Stanford Avenue] property, [because of our specific goals], we have a fixed-term nonrenewable lease…A current 51 years lease...would not be renewable.
Professor Cook interjected, "But it's not…ten years or 20 years?"
Jan Thomson replied, "No…a lease would accommodate a family that moved in…[with] no kids, and then [have] kids, [who] have to get …through high school and into college--and then the lease may expire... So we're looking at a very long period of time [for the nonrenewable lease]. It can't be less than 45 [years]…So is it 45, or is it 51? Those are the kinds of things we're talking about…"
Professor Blas Cabrera noted, "…We've actually extended [our] lease…several times, always around refinancing. Is the university looking at getting into directly financing the houses? Because if you're on the open market, you're going to need a 30-year future at any refinance time, with respect to the lease."
In response Ms. Thomson said that one would start with the 51-year term for the lease. But refinancing often requires a lease term of 30 years plus 10, so one could run into problems, possibly not with the credit union, but with some other lending institutions…We are thinking about how we might handle that. The mortgages on these homes…are going to be a good bit less than most people are used to [when] buying in this area…it might give individual faculty a lot more flexibility than they have today."
Professor Albert Camarillo asked if the west side of Campus Drive is off the drawing board for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Reidy replied that based on present plans and zoning, the property would not meet the key faculty requirements. He added that this area was going to be preserved for academic reasons. "In ranking land use priority, at the top [rank] are academic, teaching, [and] research [needs]; with housing a pretty close second."
Professor Keith Baker expressed concern. "Part of the Munger project is that graduate students will use the housing entitlement. So while we gain 600 ultra-luxury apartments, we are losing 250 affordable units. And we know that the Munger units will not be affordable to [everyone]. When in this plan will affordable graduate housing be added to the campus?"
Mr. Reidy said the Quarry Road sites will probably provide some affordable new housing.
Provost Etchemendy commented, "When Crothers Hall is taken offline, it's no longer going to be graduate student housing. That residence currently offers the lowest price housing for graduate students…We are going to lower the [rents] of [some of] the other existing housing for graduate students. So there will still be that range of price points [available]."
Professor Andrew Fire asked if Arboretum is off the table in terms of development.
Mr. Reidy replied that right now it's zoned open space.
Professor Gilbert Chu pointed out what might happen when a young family moves into Stanford Avenue housing and, 20 years later the kids go off to college. The parents that remain behind are going to want to stay there, rendering it an "under occupied" unit, because they wouldn't be able to afford a condominium in Palo Alto. This might exacerbate the housing shortage.
Ms. Thomson agreed that when a faculty member and spouse sell their Stanford Avenue house they wouldn't realize the kind of profit they would if they owned a property elsewhere.
She continued, "However, based on the modeling that we've done, they will realize a significant profit--not enough to buy another house but enough for a significant deposit on another house. And though it may not be in downtown Palo Alto, it could be in the area. So this is a tricky issue…And it's hard for us to address the financial issues of every individual faculty member."
Professor Chu followed up: "I live in a neighborhood in Palo Alto where a much smaller economic incentive is at work [because of] Proposition 13. Some…elderly people are living in huge, rambling houses because they've paid for their homes and their tax is so low that to move out would be crazy financially. So that exacerbates the housing shortage in Palo Alto…but I love them, they're wonderful neighbors."
[laughter]
President Hennessy commented, "That is not the motivator, because you transfer your tax bases now in California…if you downsize your home, you can transfer your tax base. [So that isn't the reason people stay in their large homes.] In fact, just look on campus and see how many large homes are occupied by one or two people, who easily could buy, with [the equity in] those large homes, a premier condominium in Palo Alto, but don't choose to do it. I think [there's] a lot more than just finances involved in these decisions."
Ms. Thomson observed, "What we actually see are people who really can't afford homes in the area and end up borrowing large amounts of money. They borrow [money] from the outside, they borrow from us, and they borrow from their relatives. At the end of the day, when they sell, they don't necessarily have a huge amount of money like these elderly people who bought a long time ago. People become so leveraged that what they're going to realize at the end of the day is not very much at all.
Professor Philippe Buc commented, "I actually like this plan. But we have to assume that the people…in these [Stanford Avenue] homes would have different kinds of investments…not believing necessarily that housing prices are going to go up…I mean, you're not paying mortgages, so you're not gambling…on housing. Americans gamble on housing…And so I think this is not necessarily a problem. I'm not saying it's fail safe, but I rather like it."
Dean Deborah Stipek commented that when she was at UCLA, the university had a similar arrangement. "Most of the people are relatively younger and have children and…their salaries are lower, so mortgage payments for a regular market priced [home] is stretching them further than they can go. But by the time their children are through school, their salaries are much higher, they can afford higher mortgage payments and are able to move into the regular market environment. What we saw at UCLA was a huge demand for this [plan]….one of the concerns I have is [whether] we have given any thought to the selection process if we have a greater demand than…actual housing opportunities, within even a limited tier. At UCLA, they actually kept a list in the chancellor's office and they were allocating them on the basis of value to the university…"
[laughter]
Ms. Thomson responded, "…We have experience in other housing we've built where the allocation mechanism was not successful. We do know what not to do…"
Provost Etchemendy interjected, "Let me just add one thing. Of all the various mistakes that we could make, that is not one we would make. We will not have some sort of central allocation procedure that chooses among people."
President Hennessy agreed, "Not run by us, anyway."
[laughter]
Provost Etchemendy acknowledged that the demand is probably going to exceed the supply. "But that's true now for on-campus houses. So the [Stanford Avenue homes] will get used up…and then there won't be any left, and we'll be back where we are. But at least 38 or 40 people will be housed."
Ms. Thomson concurred, "And hopefully, we'll have a model that we can use in the next effort…"
Professor James Sweeney, [President of the Stanford Campus Resident Leaseholders] (SCRL), commented, "…For a lot of people, the value of their house is a large part of their retirement portfolio they've developed over time. So if you're not going to have capital gains there, [you] could choose to allocate the same amount of money to investing in other things. They're not going to be able to be financially any better off if they have to move it to additional investment. But I'm willing to bet that a large share of the faculty members pushed for funds will not choose to take all of their savings and [invest] in the stock market, the bond market, or something else. Which means that at the end…you're going to have faculty members with a…significantly much lower retirement fund, counting the lower value for the home. Is Stanford going to have to rethink through its retirement policies and the moneys that it's put into retirement, especially to compensate for that possibility?"
President Hennessy replied, "I think that the key point here is--most people do not sell their house and use the money for retirement. The house becomes part of their estate. Will their estate become possibly smaller [as a consequence]? Possibly. But the only way to [keep] housing prices down is to take out the investment component of housing. If you don't…the price will go up with the market. And you can't do anything about that. So that's the compromise we're making."
Professor Jerry Harris had two questions: How much would the price be reduced and will the salary supplement program be adjusted to accommodate a different type of borrower?
Ms. Thomson said the reduction would be approximately 50%. "…The Housing Allowance Program---we're keeping that in place. The Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP) loan will also be available and is the model I like best, though for each individual faculty member, we'll probably craft it to [accommodate the purchasers of Stanford Avenue homes]…But they wouldn't be using the full maximum of the MAP loan. So their monthly mortgage payments would be lower. We still assume that we're going to be providing a significant amount of support, but we're also assuming the first mortgage [will be obtained] from the outside, which is what we do today.
Mr. Reidy added, "… I don't want people to fixate on 50%...it might be 40% below market, or 30%, we don't know. What…we're not charging essentially for …is infrastructure, the bricks and services, and the entitlement process."
Professor Hank Greely comment, "The Stanford Avenue development looks good to me…But our neighbors in Palo Alto sometimes have been known to complain about things we do on campus. Do we have a sense of the community, both the College Park community and the Palo Alto municipal government reaction to these plans, and does that pose significant risks for our ability to do this, or do this on time?"
Ms. Thomson said she had met with the College Terrace board in October 2007, presented the initial plan and it was very well received.
Mr. Reidy added that from a legal point of view, Stanford has a right to do this because it is part of the GUP. In College Terrace, the biggest concern is the people who park there because they don't want to buy a parking sticker, get their bike out and ride to work. Stanford is also trying to take the street grid from College Terrace and bring it through the development to the vistas between College Terrace. Moreover, the style of home in Stanford Avenue will play off the Cottage Terrace neighborhood.
Ms. Thomson said she also met with SCRL Board and got a very positive response. She added, "We're going back to College Terrace and to SCRL on February 20 with some actual floor plans and perhaps some primitive elevations."
Professor Mark Horowitz returned to the graduate housing issue: "I am concerned that as we build new graduate housing [for] people who would like better accommodations…there is an increase in the average cost of graduate housing… I'm happy the Provost has announced that Stanford will lower the [minimum rent]… We need to think very carefully [about this], because many of our graduate students barely make it on the stipends we give them…We need to provide them affordable housing, because many of them would choose to be able to afford food and a slightly less luxury environment than the opposite choice. So I am curious about the forward planning, because…Munger…is like the poster child for what not to do."
[laughter]
Mr. Reidy replied that from the master plan that was put forth a number of years ago, "The idea and most cost-effective way [to provide affordable graduate student housing] are those Escondido Village studios-- it's a double-loaded quarter corridor product of four-story frames with studios and small individual units…We could get away from studios (like we did at Munger) and instead have two or three bedroom [units with] a shared kitchen, lower our initial cost, and still use the double-loaded product. …I'm hedging a bit, because we want to respond to the changing environment…"
Provost Etchemendy provided further background: "When we built the studios, [they] were in the highest demand, that is, the graduate students really wanted that type of housing. And I think the studios we built probably satisfied [the students]. We have enough [studios] in the mix. It turns out that the highest demand for housing prior to Munger was the higher-end housing…and Munger is going to certainly satisfy that with a vengeance. My current feeling --
Professor Horowitz interjected, "We should not confuse higher demand with the most important [criterion-the] desperate student."
Provost Etchemendy resumed, "No, no, let me finish. I think that what we will do with...the next EV [Escondido Village] project, whenever that happens, my inclination actually is…to do something like a shared kitchen and a couple of bedrooms and have it hit a lower price. The reason for that is twofold: One, the lower price [and two,] we found that the studios can be lonely. There tends not to be as much social interaction within the complex.
Professor John Boothroyd was delighted that post-doctoral housing is still on the literal and figurative screen and liked the idea of going higher density, because it's the footprint [area available for housing] that's so limiting. He asked, "For the 39 units on Stanford Avenue, is the plan to put those all on the market at the same time, or are you going to parse them out over a number of years? For recruiting, [the latter] would be the best, I would say."
Mr. Reidy said the plan for delivery is still under discussion. It will be determined by the demand and the recruiting of faculty over the next upcoming years.
Professor Boothroyd continued, "…There's often a big need for rental housing for people…who are recruited, want to live here for a while, get a feel [of the place and], then buy a house. So keeping some units as a rental would be useful."
Ms. Thomson stated that Stanford has a pretty healthy rental stock in terms of demand, since incoming, recruited faculty are given priority in terms of the available rentals. This year things went very smoothly. But this matter is continuously under review.
Professor Debra Satz: "…It seems like the Stanford Avenue project is going to be very attractive to lots of people. What about higher-density projects like Pearce Mitchell, and what's the demand for them? [Should we be] doing more high-density housing for especially young faculty that we're trying to recruit who might even be priced out, even with the subsidies of the Stanford Housing?"
Mr. Reidy, referring to the committee to determine faculty preferences in housing, said it found that faculty don't want to live in high-density housing. He conceded that from a land use point of view and having a more "walkable community", the idea sounds really good, [but] it's not what the faculty want.
Jan Thomson concurred, reminding the Senate that 85% of our faculty live in single family homes. Some of the other 15% choose to live in a more urban setting but even there some want single-family homes and some are interested in condos. The main objection to high density housing is shared walls and the noise from adjacent connected buildings.
Professor Satz asked if the current units with shared walls are undersubscribed.
Ms. Thomson said there was a very healthy demand for units in Peter Coutts. Prices there appear to be going up, higher than we would prefer. With regard to Pearce Mitchell, it just depends on the year. But the homeowners association has taken on the issue of improved maintenance and so have they become more popular.
In response to Professor Satz's comments, Professor Jones stated that in the planning for the California Avenue site, there may be a greater mixture of the types of units.
Professor Diane Bailey, commenting on the combination of attractive design and low purchase price of the Stanford Avenue homes, asked if faculty who are already here may be allowed to purchase some of these homes.
Ms. Thomson commented that they were still deciding who would be eligible and in what order. Presently the idea is to give preference to faculty who are coming or faculty who are here but have never owned a single-family home in the area.
Professor Bailey asked if these homes are all taken, will there be space somewhere else to do construct more homes with the capped-appreciation arrangement?
Mr. Reidy replied that given the zoning restrictions and other limitations on the future projects he could not be certain at this time.
Professor Deborah Gordon wondered, given the importance attached to schools and the link between the price of housing and the quality of schools, whether Stanford would consider trying to negotiate, on behalf of Stanford faculty who live outside the Palo Alto area, with the Palo Alto Schools to allow their children to attend the Palo Alto schools. This might be a less expensive solution to the housing crisis than trying to support all the faculty living within the area of Palo Alto.
Ms. Thomson shook her head: "Currently, Palo Alto schools are oversubscribed. There is no availability. They're having a hard time getting all the people who live in Palo Alto into their schools. There are lots of people who work in Palo Alto who would love to have their children in Palo Alto schools, though they live elsewhere. And a number of years ago, there was a program at the elementary level where, if you worked in Palo Alto and you lived someplace else, you could apply, and if there was availability, your child could attend an elementary school. But that program was discontinued because there just wasn't the space available."
Professor Sweeney commented that the SCRL Board was really impressed by the plans for the Stanford Avenue site. He added, "The question I've probably been asked more often than anything in my role as President of SCRL, is this: Stanford has been buying up a number of homes around the Gerona area of the campus [the area where faculty homes were first built, including the Lou Henry Hoover House] …from homeowners, and Stanford [has] sharpened…the lease language that gives Stanford the right of first refusal for purchasing any of our houses. What's going on?"
Ms. Thomson replied that Professor Sweeney was correct: "…We are being very opportunistic. When somebody approaches us and asks if we would be interested in purchasing their home, and we can negotiate a price we think is reasonable for a home we think would be useful for recruitment, particularly of faculty… then we will take advantage of that opportunity …"
She went on, "…with respect to the lease language, actually it was in 1996, when the Hillside lots were made available, that the lease changed to incorporate first right of refusal. And it took a while to get it in the leases, but it's been in all current leases since the year 2000. In fact, if you read the language [of the lease] carefully, [even in] the older leases, there were requests for faculty to notify the university. So we just have strengthened that language."
Professor Cabrera asked for a clarification: "Just a follow up on that. So the university does not have plans to redevelop areas of the older campus, is that correct?"
Ms. Thomson stated that is absolutely correct.
Chair Callan thanked Ms. Thomson and Mr. Reidy and the Senators applauded.
B. Resolution on Stanford's appointment process (SenD#6041)
Chair Callan introduced the second report by reminding the Senate that at the last meeting, January 24, 2008, two resolutions regarding Stanford's appointment process were brought forward for Senate consideration. The first resolution was defeated. Because of the lateness of the hour, it was decided to carry the second resolution over to today's meeting. It was his understanding that the petitioners wished to propose an amended version of the resolution (Document No. 6041).
Chair Callan therefore decided to have the amended version treated as a friendly amendment to the original resolution and invited Professor David Spiegel to explain the amended version.
Professor David Spiegel thanked the Chair and reminded the Senate that he, along with Professors Deborah Gordon, Debra Satz, and Jonathan Bendor, had proposed that the Senate ask the Committee on the Professoriate to look into appointment processes at affiliated institutes and the issue of the appointment titles. The provost had explained that the Committee on the Professoriate is not a standing committee but is convened for major decisions about new faculty lines. The provost thought that it would be a somewhat cumbersome way to examine this issue. So Professor Spiegel and his co-authors decided instead to propose that a committee of the Senate be convened to examine this issue.
Resolution No. 2 (original language)
That the Committee on the Professoriate will examine consistency in appointment processes at Stanford-affiliated Institutes such as Hoover, FSI, and the new Arts Institute, and report back to the Faculty Senate
Amended Resolution No. 2 (moved by Professor Spiegel)
That a committee of the Senate will examine consistency in appointment processes at Stanford-affiliated Institutes such as Hoover, FSI, and the new Arts Institute, and report back to the Faculty Senate
The motion was seconded.
President Hennessy asked for a clarification: Would the resolution presumably include appointments in the entire university, such as Clinician Educator at the medical school?
Professor Spiegel replied in the affirmative and added: "The 'such as' [in the amended resolution] was really referring to the institutes, not to the appointments."
Chair Callan, hearing no objection, now called for a consideration of the amended resolution.
Professor Spiegel began, "The issue that was raised by the Distinguished Visiting Fellow appointment of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was crystallized by [University Librarian] Michael Keller's…question at the last meeting--is the problem the use of the large 'D' in 'distinguished', rather than a small 'd'?. What if somebody wanted to describe Secretary Rumsfeld as "distinguished"? I would, of course, have no objection to that. Any member of the faculty should be able to express whatever opinion they want…The use of the large 'D', in the honorific title suggests that the opinion is a shared opinion. It is an institutional opinion, rather than a given faculty member's opinion…that gets to the issue…of vetting. I think [Hoover Institute Director] John Raisian…admitted he had blown it [the appointment of Secretary Rumsfeld to the Hoover Institute as Distinguished Fellow] by not [first] vetting this particular appointment with the Provost and the President.
Professor Spiegel continued, "On the other hand, the provost has said quite appropriately that he doesn't want to have to review all the myriad nonacademic council appointments. We know that academic council appointments are very carefully vetted and [the latter appointments are not intended to be included in the purview of the amended resolution]. So I think the issue [concerns] a small number of appointments, particularly [those] that carry some honorific title…that convey a university honor, like the conferring of an honorary degree (which Stanford does not do), and may require more vetting…So we ask the committee to look into that and report back to us about the possibility that there are certain types of appointments that may need further vetting, and there are others that clearly do not."
Chair Callan thanked Professor Spiegel and opened the floor for discussion.
Professor Ann Arvin, Vice Provost and Dean of Research, pointed out that departments, not just institutes, have various [titles] for people. If a review is going to be undertaken, it should probably be broadened.
Professor Satz made several points. First, the sense of this resolution is to accept the reasonableness of the decentralized system we now have that allows units to make temporary appointments in the university, and subject them to fairly minimal vetting, that is, to have faith in the different units. Second, she sensed that the number of temporary appointments to the university is rapidly expanding, partly because of the creation of new institutes and initiatives, and partly because the university is engaged in more projects. Third, therefore, the intent of this resolution is to undertake an information-gathering operation to determine if there really is an issue here. If you're not going to vet these appointments in any way centrally, then at least let's find out what's going on with the use of these titles in a decentralized fashion. Fourth, she agreed with Professor Arvin's suggestion that the inquiry be conducted all through the university.
President Hennessy weighed in: "I was going to encourage you actually to remove the clause, 'the institute', because I think that is entirely misleading. There are far more [categories]. If you think 'consultant professor' is an honorific title, I guarantee there are lots more consulting professors than there are 'distinguished anything' around the university. And those have all been not vetted, or vetted only at the department level, or at subdepartment level. And there are people who are using the title 'professor' associated with positions which are not in the Academic Council. I just encourage you to consider the whole realm of things and what, if anything, should be done about it."
Chair Callan recognized Professor Spiegel who accepted as friendly amendments the recommendations of Professor Arvin and President Hennessey.
Chair Callan asked if there were any objections. The Academic Secretary asked the president to restate his friendly amendment but Professor Spiegel intervened:
"Could I propose that after 'at Stanford' we just drop the listing of affiliated institutes?" President Hennessy agreed to Professor Spiegel's stipulation. They both further agreed to amend the resolution by limiting the appointment processes to be examined to those of the "nonacademic council'.
Professor Spiegel restated the resulting wording of the amended resolution:
"That an ad hoc committee be convened to examine the consistency in nonacademic council appointment processes, including the use of honorific titles at Stanford, and will report its results and recommendations to the Faculty Senate."
Professor Andrew Fire was not satisfied: "I would also propose to remove 'consistency'. It doesn't seem like consistency is a problem."
Professor Spiegel, continuing to exhibit a remarkable flexibility, promptly accepted Professor Fire's suggestion.
There ensued other suggested deletions that would have resulted in the removal of key verbs in the resolution. Chair Callan quickly intervened, "Before we all lose our way here, I think what we currently have is sort of an orgy of friendly amendments." At this, the Senate quieted down and later suggestions were not further considered, leaving the amended resolution to read:
An ad hoc committee will be convened to examine nonacademic council appointment processes, including the use of honorific titles at Stanford, and will report results and recommendations to the Faculty Senate.
In response to a question from Professor John Bravman, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, Professor Spiegel stated that the issue, while not just confined to honorific titles, does not extend to issues like office space.
Professor Satz noted that the length of the appointment should be included in the committee's review since a number of one-year temporary appointments have been made, that have become in actuality de facto permanent appointments to the university.
Another concern was about appointments at the medical school. Professor Spiegel noted that when he served as a department chair, he discovered that several consulting professors had business cards with the label, "professor," which led people to think that they were members of the faculty of Stanford.
Provost Etchemendy tried to imagine what would come from this resolution:
"…There are so many different kinds of different temporary appointments, and visiting scholars. If you look at the process, you'll find—Andy [Professor Fire] took away the consistency part--there's no consistency. In some cases …if a faculty member from Europe says, 'can I come and be a visiting scholar for a year?' the department chair says--sure. In other cases -- I don't know this to be the case -- it may well be the department administrator who says--sure.
"I guarantee we will discover that there is that kind of range [in the appointment processes], and that kind of inconsistency--and you know what? That doesn't bother me. I would hate to think that by virtue of our examining this, we would get a report, and the Senate would say, 'Well, now, you've got to do something about these processes.' That really scares me.
"…You may think that the Provost is the source of all bureaucracy. It's not always entirely true. I would hate for us to impose upon ourselves a bureaucratic process that is really about …low risk types of appointment…"
Professor Iain Johnstone asked, "…Nothing in the wording precludes staff appointments, does it?"
Professor Keith Baker also was concerned: "I am wondering whether that designation would include lecturers, because in many cases we appoint advance graduate students as lecturers. [If so] we're opening up a very broad field here of appointments to be looked at."
Professor Greely reassured the Senate, "Now, I don't think we need to be so concerned about micromanaging the committee's charge. The committee is unlikely to be interested in wasting a lot of time doing stupid things [laughter] and even if they do, the resolve of the committee is not regulations, rules, laws, et cetera, but in reporting recommendations to the Senate--which I trust will not be interested in doing stupid and wasteful things. So I think we've got a general sense [of the purpose of the resolution]. I think Professor Satz' view that there may be some things beyond just honorifics that a committee might decide to look into [is reasonable] …I don't think the committee is going to look into staff appointments, although… arguably they could undertake this. I think we should give the committee and whoever turns out to be on it, some credit for common sense, and let [the present language] go through, rather than try to pinpoint exactly what we now think the committee ultimately should decide to look at, and report back to us."
Professor Buc commented, "I agree with what my distinguished colleague has said, and [am confident that] the Provost will prevent us from crossing the wrong bridge when we come to it."
Provost Etchemendy interjected, "You have such faith."
Professor Buc responded, "I have great faith in your efforts."
Chair Callan, looking at Professor Greely said, "I like your use of the word 'distinguished', by the way."
[laughter]
Chair Callan re-read the amended resolution.
An ad hoc committee will be convened to examine nonacademic council appointment processes, including the use of honorific titles at Stanford, and will report results and recommendations to the Faculty Senate.
Chair Callan called for a show of hands. The motion was passed unanimously.
VI. Unfinished BusinessThere was no unfinished business.
VII. New BusinessThere was no new business.
VIII. AdjournmentThe motion to adjourn was moved, seconded and approved. The Senate adjourned at 4:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted, Rex L. Jamison, M.D. Academic Secretary to the University
