Agenda for Faculty Senate meeting
3 PM Friday, January 25, 2008
Board Room, David Student Union

Senators present: Rebecca Wheeler, Jean Filetti,  Kip Redick, Lynn Lambert, Gary Whiting, Ming Zhang, Nicole Guajardo, Pete Carlson, Eric Duskin, Niazur Rahim, Leland Jordan, Bob Hasbrouck (arrived at 3:17), Tim Marshall (arrived at 3:30),  Kathleen Brunke (arrived at 3:55),  Nate French (arrived at 4:04).
Senators absent: none

  1. President Whiting called the meeting to order at 3:03.
  2. Introduction of guests: Dr. Keston Fulcher, Director, Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation and Andrew Lundsten (arrived 4:30), SGA president
  3. Approval of minutes of Faculty Senate meetings
    1. acknowledge electronic approval of minutes for December 7, 2007 meeting

    President Whiting asked to consider the first item of new business out of order. A description of that discussion is given under that agenda item.

  4. President's report
    1. Establishment of a parking committee (approved by Fac. Senate on Nov. 2, 2007) – handbook language follows:

      Parking Advisory/Appeals Committee (PAAC) University Handbook Submission for Review/Approval as a new Administrative Committee
      The Parking Advisory/Appeals Committee (PAAC) shall consist of the Director of Parking and Transportation (Chair), two Faculty members nominated by the Faculty Senate and appointed by the President for 2 year terms, two Staff members, and two Student representatives nominated by the SGA and appointed by the President. The purpose of this committee is to discuss, propose and implement changes to parking policy, rules and regulations. The committee will also provide a structured means to appeal a citation after the initial appeal has been denied.
    2. Comparison of Tenure and Promotion Rates over past 6 years (2002-2007) In early January, the Provost office provided the Faculty Senate President with the conclusions of the past review cycle. For comparison purposes, President Whiting asked if the Provost office could generate numbers for the past couple of years. The data provided in tabular form is expressed in success ratio for each year. The last column in the table is a cumulative success ratio starting with 2002 as the base year.
      Tenure and Promotion Rates from 2002
      Office of the Provost
      1/24/2008
      Information provided at the request of the Faculty Senate President.  Percentages were derived from historical data and should not be interpreted as indicative of a quota system.  The Provost uses only University Handbook criteria in making final recommendations.
      Review Year Promotion to Full Prof Success rate by year Promotion to Associate Success rate by year Tenure Success rate by year Percent Cumulative Tenure Rate since 2002

      Fall 2007

      0.50

      0.70

      0.75

      0.86

      Fall 2006

      0.67

      1.00

      1.00

      0.90

      Fall 2005

      0.67

      0.60

      0.67

      0.88

      Fall 2004

      0.40

      1.00

      1.00

      0.91

      Fall 2003

      1.00

      1.00

      1.00

      0.88

      Fall 2002

      0.50

      0.80

      0.67

      0.67

      Notes

       

       

       

       

      1

      Since 2002 the tenure rate has been lower than in 2007 in 2 years, and higher than in 2007 in 3 years.

      2

      The yearly cumulative tenure rate ranges from .67 in the base year (2002) to .91. In 2007 it is .86

      3

      CNU tenured more faculty in 2007 than in the two previous years combined.

      There was a 97% probationary reappointment success rate for 2007.
    3. Alumni Teaching Award This was established by the activity of the Faculty Senate in collaboration with the Alumni Society in 2006. Reminder of the nomination process and timeline for 2008 award consideration can be found here.
    4. Faculty Development Grants for the Fall 07 were awarded to the list of faculty and the amounts approved by the Faculty Senate at the Nov. 2, 2007 meeting.

      We have $15K for the Spring 2008. Applications for FDG will follow this schedule:

      Date

      Day

      Turn in to

      Feb 1

      F

      Chair

      Feb 13

      W

      Dean

      Mar 3

      M

      Senate

      Mar 28

      F

      Senate vote

    5. Prestigious Scholarships Committee Lori Underwood (chair) has submitted this Handbook change in the composition of the Prestigious Scholarships Committee. Committee will consist of coordinators/advisors of the various scholarships and fellowships. The Senate will review these proposed changes during its February meeting.
    6. Search for Director of Sponsored Programs is near completion. We have had 2 on-campus interviews. An offer may occur – soon.
    7. Sabbatical Proposals The Sabbatical Program for 2008-2009 has been suspended by the Provost. Two reasons were stated: Phasing in of the 4-3 and the budget cut this year and the potential for future cuts. The two sabbatical proposals for 2008-2009 were not granted.
    8. Raise & Merit Pay Calculations The Provost office indicated that the same formula developed and used previously by Provost Summerville was used again for this past annual review cycle.
  5. Committee reports
    1. Chair's Recommendation report (Jean Filetti): There is a new chair of chairs, Ed Weiss. He will bring that committee together.
    2. Faculty Evaluation System Committee (Bob Hasbrouck): Tim Marshall will be the co-chair. This process began in 1997. The committee with meet with Provost Padilla February 1. Senator Hasbrouck will report on the committee's progress in February.
    3. Committee on University Honor (Rebecca Wheeler): Kevin Hughes, chair, and the committee was charged with integrating honor into the university community. The result is a report consisting of 80 recommendations. Some comments from the senators include praise for a student-run convocation, concern for not being able to overcome an early F from cheating, and questions about how faculty hiring should be affected by the honor code.
    4. J-Term report (Kip Redick): The first JTerm will be in January 2009. There is a summary of the format and requirements here.
    5. ATAC (Kip Redick): The search for an instructional technology person in the classroom to replace Michelle Chan is almost complete.
    6. Department Liaison Reports:
      1. Theater and Dance (Niazur Rahim):
        1. The department had the following comments on the faculty evaluation schedule:
          1. The department would like to have at least 1 non-tenured member allowed as a non-voting member on a peer group.
          2. hierarchy: The department would like to maintain the current hierarchy of Peer Group - Dean - Provost because otherwise the process loses the independent view of the dean.
          3. The shift from every year to 2, 4, 6 is ok.
        2. The add/drop form should change to include an instructor approve/disapprove line.
      2. Music (Tim Marshall): The Music Department expressed concerns that some of their practice and performance facilities in Ferguson are not sufficient.  They specifically noted that space provided for the Marching Band to practice in is inadequate in terms of sound quality, lighting, heating, humidity control, and air conditioning.  They noted that for large periods of the year that room is not usable because it is too hot or too cold.  Equipment cannot be left in the room because birds and other animals have access to the space, and temperature and humidity variability make storage of equipment impossible.
        a.    They also voiced concerns about lack of space for storage and office space for their faculty.  They know that space is short everywhere on campus, but they have four faculty who have offices in small practice rooms, surrounded by other practice rooms.  They noted that for much of the day those spaces are not very useful for meeting with students or getting work done.
        b.    They ask the senate to encourage Provost Padilla to provide information on how merit pay was determined this year (President Whiting answered that Provost Padilla used the same formula that Provost Summerville used),
        c.    Wondering whether professional development expectations will increase with the shift to 4-3
        d.    Wondering what counts as service to the Provost, e.g., do performances count?
        f.    Voiced concern that the IDEA is given too much weight for assessing teaching and suggested peer visitation as means of providing additional information regarding teaching quality.
    7. Campus Safety and Security Committee (Carlson): In response to the last alarm test, a new bank of speakers will be added, and discussions are underway about adding the alarm to building fire alarms. There is also a new alert system in place for which faculty, staff and students will have to re-register every semester. There are also plans to put a poster in every classroom about what to do in case of an emergency. A reminder that the emergency phone number on the CNU campus is (59)4-7777.

      The committee requested the senate's opinion on whether to request that security training for all instructors (including adjuncts) be mandatory. The training could be done online, as brown bags, as part of a department meeting, or as a special presentation.

      Action: Carlson/Wheeler moved to endorse the concept of a 30 minute mandatory faculty session including adjuncts to inform faculty about what to do in case of an emergency. In favor: French, Lambert, Brunke, Zhang, Guajardo, Marshall, Rahim, Jordan, Redick, Carlson, Hasbrouck, Wheeler.  Opposed: Filetti; Abstain: Duskin. Motion passes.

  6. Old business
    1. faculty evaluation schedule The vote and discussion was split into 5 parts:
      1. Promotion of associate professor and tenure would be combined into one evaluation. Promotion before tenure would not be allowed anymore.

        Discussion: Some senators' constituents were worried that current tenured assistant professors will then be required to apply for promotion. To alleviate this, the senate amended President's Whiting wording above to add "Promotion of associate professor and tenure would be combined into one evaluation. Promotion before tenure would not be allowed anymore. This applies to current and future probationary faculty."

        Action: in favor: unanimous. Vote on combining promotion to associate and tenure passed.

      2. Candidates would be evaluated in years 2, 4, and 6 rather than years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Contracts would be issues for three years, including an initial three year contract.

        Discussion: Senators and constituents were concerned that there might be a faculty member who becomes a poor match with a department's needs after a shorter period of time than 3 years. Page 129, VII.9.e of the University Handbook states: "When reason arises to question the fitness of a tenured faculty member or one whose nontenured appointment has not expired, the Provost of the university, in consultation with the faculty member’s Dean, decides whether formal dismissal proceedings shall be initiated or whether some lesser sanction shall be imposed." Thus, it is possible to begin dismissal proceedings through means other than the standard faculty evaluation process.

        Another point discussed was the role of the Eval-AR. In between full dossier years, all candidates will continue to be evaluated using their Eval-AR. The Eval-AR will almost certainly play a greater role in retention. Thus, the feedback provided to the candidate may need to increase in departments where there is little written about each candidate. This is not written in the current document.

        Action: vote in favor: unanimous. Probationary faculty evaluation switch from every year to every other year passed.

      3. Peer groups would change their name to "department review group" and would consist of the chair, 3-5 tenured members of the department and one outside member chosen by the Vice-Provost from a list provided by the candidate. Department review groups would consist of tenured members only. Outside members will normally be chosen from within the candidate's division.

        Discussion: Several constituents would like to see untenured faculty on the peer group committees even if they cannot vote. The departments with few tenured faculty in particular feel that their probationary  faculty cannot be fairly evaluated by those outside the department. It was noted, however, that the Provost has already ruled out any untenured faculty on any peer group, so this vote will not change that status.

        Action: In favor: Filetti, Lambert, Brunke, Zhang, Guajardo, Marshall, Rahim, Jordan, Redick, Carlson, Hasbrouck, Wheeler. Opposed: French, Duskin. Vote on change from peer group to department review group passed.

      4. The Faculty Review Committee would consist of elected tenured members only (2 from each division). The Provost would appoint one member at-large to make the total committee size 9 faculty members.

        Discussion: The current composition is half-appointed, half-elected.

        Action: In favor: unanimous. Vote on FRC reorganization passed.

      5. The Faculty Review Committee and Dean would switch positions in the order so that the order would be: department Review Group, Faculty Review Committee, Dean, Provost, President. The Dean and Provost would consult with each others, but would provide separate statements.

        Discussion: Because there was less agreement on this point, President Whiting and Vice-President Guajardo provided a chart with the order that 14 similar institutions use in faculty evaluation. One consideration is how many colleges these institutions have since some faculty would like to move to a multi-college model. Thus, President Whiting provided the data for the institutions compared here. There was no agreement on which model would be best for CNU.

        Action: Hasbrouck/Brunke move to table this last point. In favor: unanimous. Vote on FRC/Dean position switch tabled.

  7. New business
    1. HERI Faculty Survey

      This agenda item was considered out of order before the president's report.

      You will receive a survey from HERI which has questions from the Provost on CNU's faculty evaluation, centers, advising and desired qualifications of academic deans. Assessment director Fulcher encourages you to fill out the survey. Although the survey collects personal data, CNU cannot request data in groups smaller than 5 people, so it is not possible to determine how individuals answered questions. When CNU receives information, all identifying information will be removed. Please fill out this survey. More information can be found here.

      After this item was considered, the order returned to the President's report.

       

    2. Faculty Survey (Hasbrouck):  Senator Hasbrouck is preparing another survey to evaluate faculty attitudes on the faculty evaluation system including transparency, visibility, feedback and process. That survey is forthcoming.

  8. Other
    1. Senator French announced that the General Assembly is considering two laws that are important to faculty. Please let your senator (John Miller from CNU now represents the first district) and delegate know how you feel on these issues.

      First, the General Assembly is considering a 50% tuition reduction program for faculty children statewide. Second, the General Assembly is considering how 403B plans might be able to be converted into a VRS (defined benefit) plan.

    2. Emeritus resolution Healy.doc Emeritus consideration for Joseph Healy. Please read and consider for a February vote.
    3. Students are unhappy about a new policy regarding copy charges. In the past, all copies in the library were free. Now, students are allowed 75 pages a year After that, students will be charged 10 cents a page. President Lundsten said that although most institutions charge something, 10 cents seems expensive. 5 cents seems more reasonable especially because student fees fund some of this anyway.
    4. With a shortage of seminar rooms, some senators would like to be able to schedule the classrooms next to Einstein's for classes until the new buildings are built which will provide space for that.
    The meeting was adjourned at 6:55.