Original Minutes from Faculty Senate Meeting - May 1, 2002
Return to revised Minutes of 5-1-2002
President Caporael opened the meeting noting there was not a quorum to approve the minutes of the April 24 meeting, but reports from the committees would still be presented.
Ron Gutmann presented the P&T committee report in place of Don Drew who was not able to attend the meeting. There were a total of 19 P&T cases this semester. Thirteen internal: 2 for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor, 5 for promotion from Assistant to Associate with tenure, 6 cases for Associate Professor to Professor. There were 2 appeal cases, plus 6 external hires, 4 of which involved administrative appointments from Department Heads and higher. In addition, the Provost's Office stated there are several new hire cases that may require consideration over the summer. Gutmann touched on some of the more sensitive issues: process reviews, in particular to solicitation of external letters, external cases where the candidate does not have tenure at the present time, and the perceived "raising of the bar." (Report attached.)
Bruce Nauman inquired that in the past, there was a firm understanding that someone who had not had tenure at another university, could not receive it here, and asked if that requirement has been dropped.
Gutmann replied there is no such requirement stated in the P&T documentation, the handbook, or the working document. So he did not know whether it had been dropped. However, it has been to some extent a de-facto operating principle. There were three cases this semester (in terms of the six external hires) in which people had not had tenure at a university, and were put forth for tenure, and were evaluated as part of the process. Since they have gone through the system, this sort of ad-hoc operating guideline is no longer being universally followed. There have not been final decisions on these cases.
The role of the Faculty Senate looking over the guidelines set forth in the working document of 1995, steps in case preparation, the advisory capacity of the department faculty vote and the joint committee's position were also discussed.
Mary Anne Staniszewski presented the Curriculum Committee's report (Report
Further discussion about the status of the IT interdisciplinary degree
program, and the program's representation on the Curriculum Committee
followed. President Caporael noted that the status of a "Program"
is non-existent in the faculty handbook. There is still a tabled motion
on the FSCC amendment, which will need to be addressed next semester.
Prabhat Hajela questioned the core curriculum, the 4x4, and creeps in credits upwards for degree requirements. Gary Gabriele is working with the Curriculum Committee to address the core curriculum issues. Gabriele also noted that the School of Science previously was not at the Engineering level of credit requirements (from 124 to 128 credits.) Increasing the Engineering credits would be tough, and solid assessment data to support such changes would be needed. There was discussion as to what would constitute proof or valid assessment data. Gabriele suggested all faculty members attend the upcoming colloquium on how to assess student knowledge and student learning. Further conversation touched upon grade inflation.
Ralph Noble presented the Planning & Resource Committee's report (Report attached.) Noble provided the financial landscape from the point of view of the faculty member. He felt that faculty do not understand the fiscal landscape at the level of granularity that they need to function. Discussion centered on where budget monies were spent, the status of the $360 million gift and if the gift is in the endowment. Ginny Gregg (Vice President, Finance) was not able to discuss the terms of the gift short of saying it was not in the endowment.
Noble further reported that there was an extensive response to the surveys and with the exception of the School of Architecture there was at least one response from every identifiable academic unit on campus.
Conversation regarding the fact that of the 32% responding, 80% were unhappy with the way the changes (in tuition policy) were introduced. How this feeling should be communicated to the President and the Board of Trustees, as well as all around better communication, and trust issues were discussed. Transition issues were addressed, in particular to any student "caught in the middle." Provost Peterson reiterated that he and Tom Apple are addressing these issues everyday. If any student feels this process is treating him/her unfairly, the Provost asks the faculty to bring these cases to their attention.
President Caporael noted there were not enough faculty members present to develop a response to the report. She made a suggestion that Noble send a copy of the quantitative data to the Provost. The FSXC should bring the results of this poll to the President and the Board of Trustees. President Caporael also suggested that a follow-up poll be taken at the end of next year to keep track of things. The hope is that communication and information regarding the compensation process will go more smoothly, as lessons have been learned this past semester. The approach is to be more proactive than reactive.
President Caporael presented Prabhat Hajela a plaque commending him for the incredible amount of effort, advice and devotion he has displayed in his three-year term on the Faculty Senate. Hajela thanked everyone, for the learning experience, he feels it is an important thing to do and he urged all his colleagues to step forward and take over!
President Caporael then handed over the gavel to the new President of the Faculty Senate, Peter Persans, who introduced the new members of the Faculty Senate for the 2002-2003 Academic Year.
The meeting adjourned at 4pm.
|July 22, 2004|