on the Plus/Minus Ballot -
of the Faculty Senate Committee on Promotion & Tenure -
of the Faculty Senate Committee on Planning & Resources -
of the President of the Senate -
The Minutes were approved with minor changes: 12 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention.
President of the
Provost Peterson stated that it is unclear what the next
step is, but the Board of Trustees is aware of the Proposal and the results will
be forwarded to the President. The Board
of Trustees is interested in the results but he does not believe their approval
is required. The Provost suggested that
someone on behalf of the
Mike Dillon, newly-elected Grand Marshal, stated that he is confident in saying that most students are overwhelmingly against grade modifiers. They feel the faculty might be forcing it on them and if the proposal does go through, the students will blame the faculty, not the administration. He believes that grade modifiers will cause a rift between the faculty and students. Henry Scarton wanted to provide additional data based on the grade percentages. He stated that if a 3.67 is an A-, 3.33 is a B+, 3.0 for a B and 4.0 for A, it works out on a percentage basis that a 96% is an A and this will set the curve higher. He does not believe it is a good idea and is opposed to the proposal and hopes President Jackson rejects the proposal. Joel Plawsky asked if there is any wording in the proposal that requires the faculty to grade using this system. President Geisler stated “no.”
Marty Glicksman stated that he was against the proposal and most of his students were not necessarily opposed but some of his fellow faculty members have wondered what the advantage of the proposal is.
President Geisler explained that the
current question is what the Senate should now do with the results. Achille Messac, Senator-at-Large, stated
that he feels that the
Debbie Kaminski, Recording Secretary, stated that since the
Alan Nadel, Chair of the Faculty Committee on Promotion & Tenure for the fall semester, stated that they reviewed four people who are being considered for associate professor with tenure status, one person considered for full professor and one outside full professor with tenure. He added that the outcomes were consistent with the recommendations.
The Committee had discussed and voted on 16 cases from all 5 schools: 10 cases of promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor with tenure, 1 case of Tenure for an Associate Professor, 4 cases of Promotion from Associate to Full Professor and 1 case of Full Professor with tenure for an outside candidate. The Joint Committee included members of the Faculty P&T Committee plus the Deans. They met and voted on the 16 spring promotion cases on Wednesday April 28th. The results were sent to the Provost who will send his recommendations to the President. This should all occur in the next few weeks, with the administration announcing the final decisions in May. He added that the process has gone quite smoothly and that in most cases, the votes of the members of the Committee and Deans were not substantially different.
There was a document that outlined 13 concerns which were procedural items, such as needing more information or suggestions for organization. The committee did give names and specifics, therefore the document is confidential. President Geisler asked if the concerns could be stripped of identifying information so that the Senate could see the document. Alan responded that the concerns were instructions on how to put together the best packet. He said he would poll the committee by email to determine if it was possible. Senator-at-Large, Sharon Anderson-Gold, stated that although they cannot give votes or names, she asked whether the Committee could share the success rate. Ricardo said that the majority of cases were successful and it will be public knowledge once the process is complete. The Committee processed approximately 22-23 cases and the number of cases stopped at the department or school level was less than 5. The Provost cautioned that it is difficult to report what actually starts or stops a process. Ricardo stated that of all the cases that officially came to the department level and were voted on, the majority went to the Committee. Alan added that there were no appeals. By request, the Provost will notify people as quickly as possible of the outcome after the Board meeting. The results are announced to the general faculty through Campus News.
Randolph Franklin stated that Roger Wright, Chair of the Faculty Committee on Planning & Resources, had attended many meetings with various administrators. The Committee helped prepare the Faculty Early Input Reports based on information generated from Faculty Early Input Forums.
Some pending items that were not done during the year were
to have detailed
Recommendations for the future besides completing the pending items include more effective involvement with the Faculty Senate and becoming a channel for the faculty to have input in the budgeting process as well as to assess the relevance of the performance planning process.
Throughout the year, there were many course and curriculum changes to review. The major items approved were revisions to the Masters in Architecture, a new MBA program, and several minors in various schools.
The core curriculum outcomes were debated and voted down by
the faculty. The Committee then debated
the next step and various alternatives.
The Committee passed a motion that the
The Committee had discussions based on general institute integrity statements to be included in course syllabi and it was concluded that no single statement will fit all. However, a motion was passed that said that academic integrity statements and course syllabi should contain the following three points:
The Committee also passed a motion to ask the Faculty Senate to set up a website, accessible only by faculty, where faculty can share information regarding academic integrity, policies and procedures. This motion will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.
A motion was passed regarding communications and writing requirements. The motion, which will be submitted to Gary Gabriele, suggests the creation of a broad-based task force to produce recommendations regarding communications and writing requirements as well as specify the resources necessary to implement the recommendations, including the creation of the writing assignments.
President Cheryl Geisler made a comment on the communications requirement. She recommended that the Senate set up that task force. She suggested it be done as a Senate ad hoc committee. Christoph replied since it will be broad-based, it will include all those who have an interest in it.
Larry Kagan asked whether there was any discussion within the Committee about the impact of the 4x4. Christoph responded that they had formulated a list of items in order of interest and the 4x4 is on the list.
Jim Stodder, Senator from
Henry Scarton noted that, in many core engineering courses, reference is made to the academic integrity statement in the handbook. Christoph was convinced by his colleagues that one statement did not cover all courses since issues are not the same in different courses, and cheating and plagiarism are not the same. Students apparently do not know what allowed or disallowed collaboration is. Christoph stated that the Committee could not come up with good general guidelines that should be in the handbook. Henry suggested there nevertheless be some reference to the handbook.
Report of the President of the Senate -
The first task under Operations was to address the infrastructure.
A permanent infrastructure was created that was not available before.
In terms of communications with the Administration, the
In terms of communications with faculty, there were major improvements
in the frequency and the quality of communications. The Minutes are now being sent out with hyperlinks
and a website has been developed for special issues. A few things to consider are the
establishment of regular communications with
It is also important to create a mechanism in which individual Senators can communicate with their constituents. Work is starting on email group lists for individual Senators. Recent discussions pointed to this being something the Senators needed.
The Faculty Senate had a retreat in the fall and working groups this year for the first time. She thought there was a better sense of focus and she recommended that the working groups continue. Regarding standing committees, there should be closer coordination between the Senate and those committees.
Under Peter Persan’s leadership, the mechanism to remember
deceased faculty was improved. It is an
important part of being a
A lot of headway has been made on the Faculty Handbook. The results are with the Institute counsel. It is expected that revisions will come to a vote in the Fall. It is a large handbook and if serious discussion needs to happen in the Senate, she suggests that the Senators divide it into sections.
Provost Peterson added that feedback was sought from the
Henry Scarton asked whether the intellectual property aspect is part of the handbook. The Provost responded that it is not currently part of the Faculty Handbook or in the proposed Handbook. What is in the Handbook now is the statement that all faculty and employees must sign a statement regarding intellectual property. Henry asked what the status of the intellectual property policy is and when the draft will be presented. The Provost responded that there is a great deal of work currently being done and that a draft should be available for the Faculty Senate next year for discussion.
Cheryl stated there was an additional handbook issue associated with the Employee Handbook which was brought to the Senate. A concern was brought up concerning the title of the Handbook and the applicability of the Handbook policies. As of now, the Employee Handbook has not changed to reflect the motion that was passed by the Senate. Her recommendation is that it is a Human Resources Vice President issue. Provost Peterson suggested that the Senate send a formal communication of that to the Vice President for Human Resources on this issue.
There was much discussion last year on the Constitution and several amendments were formulated and passed recently which will go on to President Jackson and the Board of Trustees for ratification. President Geisler noted that the key issue for clinical faculty is their voting status, which remains problematic. There is a standing Constitutional Committee working on this and she recommends that it continue so that hopefully by next year’s ballot there will be an amendment with support so that it will be addressed.
There is a grievance procedure in the Constitution. One faculty member did come forward with a
grievance against a member of the administration. The grievance procedure was followed and it is
still in mediation. Her assessment is
that the grievance procedure is a good resource to work out individual
differences between faculty and administration.
Grievance procedures can be read in the
The status at
Jim Stodder added that it is not only due to the high cost. He feels the
Jim stated that he sees things that are improving and new initiatives. What he does not see is a renewed commitment
in resources to
Provost Peterson added that he feels the single most
important thing the Faculty Senate could do to encourage involvement by the
The Faculty Senate did not do a great deal with compensation, but there was a report from the Faculty Advisory Board and the assessment was that their involvement and outcomes were positive.
In response to the parking access issues, broader issues
were discussed by the
Regarding the Early Input Forums that the Planning & Resources committee mentioned, she felt more could be done to integrate the faculty into the performance planning process. One possibility, which would involve constitutional reform, would be to re-write the mandate of the Planning & Resources Committee to be more closely aligned to the functions with regard to performance planning. She suggested that having Planning & Resources better integrated through its mandate is something to consider.
There were special issues that came to the
The Faculty Club was an issue that came out of the retreat
last fall and has made a fair amount of progress this year. President Jackson has encouraged the
discussion. The survey was presented in
draft form to the
The Core Curriculum is still not finalized. The faculty voted to reject the 22 Core Objectives document. President Geisler suggested that the Senate consider taking some leadership on the core and be proactive instead of reactive.
There were three graduate policies discussed: the absentia policy, time limits for
Provost Peterson announced that he received a formal request from the students that no action be taken on the Plus/Minus Grade Proposal implementation until after the student referendum. Senator-at-Large Sharon Anderson-Gold stated that the Senate already voted to delay the implementation. She added that many Institutions have Plus/Minus grading and the students adapt. She feels that grade structure should appropriately be up to the faculty. She also stated that faculty are not required to use this system which opens up flexibility. The students are acting as if they have veto power.
President Geisler stated that she did invite recently hired
faculty to the reception. President
Geisler then handed over electronic files to President-elect Bruce Nauman and
passed on the gavel. President-elect
Bruce Nauman stated that he has a hard act to follow. He added that he has been impressed with