Special Session of Faculty Senate Meeting
Minutes
3:00 PM Friday, February 6, 2009
TRI 111 Einstein's Trible Library

Senators present: Duskin, Xu, Brunke, McMahon, Brash, Underwood, Wheeler, Lambert, Frucot, Carlson, Rahim, Guajardo (leaves at 4:40).
Senators absent: Filetti, Mollick, French
  1. The meeting was called to order at 3:02.
  2. Approval of minutes of Faculty Senate meeting
      Senators voted in favor of modifying the January 23 minutes to change the beginning of the third paragraph of VI.C to the two sentences that begin "Some senators wanted to clarify the language." The January 23 minutes now stand as approved.
  3. President's report
    As this was a special meeting, there was no president's report.

  4. Committee Reports
    There were no committee reports at this special session.

  5. Old business
    1. Discussion and Vote on University Eval-4 Process. Senator Underwood created nine motions from each of the suggestions sent to senators.

      1. Motion 1: The Faculty Senate wishes to recognize the scope and quality of service rendered to the university by the University Eval 4 committee and commend them for their efforts on this substantial document. Underwood/Rahim move to pass. Vote in Favor: Unanimous. Motion passes.

      2. Motion 2:
        Background I. Teaching Area One:

        Concern motivating motion 2: the "preponderance" of IDEA scores "in the gray area or above" may not be very clear (UE4, p.2). However, being in the gray area is a significant achievement. Also, some of the categories such as excellence of course rely on coding that may not yield consistently accurate results for courses unique to our curriculum.

        Motion 2: That the phrase "preponderance" of IDEA scores "in the gray area or above" be replaced with "evidence of reliably high quality teaching as reflected in IDEA scores that generally remain in the gray area or above in the areas of excellence of instructor, excellence of course, and progress on relevant objectives."

        After discussion, the motion was changed to: That the phrase "preponderance" of IDEA scores "in the gray area or above" be replaced with "preponderance" of IDEA scores "in the gray area or above in the areas of excellence of instructor and progress on relevant objectives." Senators Underwood and Brash move the above. Vote in Favor: Duskin, Xu, Brunke, McMahon, Brash, Underwood, Lambert, Frucot, Rahim, Guajardo. Against: Carlson. Motion passes.

      3. Motion 3:
        Background Concern motivating motion 3: Under Teaching, Area One, Teaching Development, Highly Valued Activities include "syllabus creation designed for learning enhancement," (p. 3) and Valued Activities include "Syllabus creation as course information" (p. 3). I am not sure about the definitions or differences of these two kinds of syllabus.

        Motion 3: Strike the reference to "Syllabus creation as course information." Under Valued Activities and change the reference to "syllabus creation designed for learning enhancement," under Highly Valued Activities to say “creation of syllabi that enhance student learning outcomes.”

        After discussion, the motion was changed to: Strike the reference to syllabus creation as course information under valued. Change the syllabus reference in highly valued to "creation of a well designed syllabus." Vote in Favor: unanimous. Motion passes.

      4. Motion 4:
        Background II. Research, scholarship and creative activity Introduction

        Concern motivating motion 4: The beginning of the 2nd paragraph (p. 4) is unclear: “Through his or her independent research/creativity agenda the disciplinary expertise, the faculty member maintains a vital “life of the mind” necessary for promoting an academic climate of inquiry and self-expression inside the classroom and on the campus as a whole, thus ensuring the University can validate faculty expertise in its interactions with students and their families, the state of Virginia, accreditation agencies, donors and friends, and private, corporate, and governmental funding agencies.”

        Motion 4: Replace the statement “Through his or her independent research/creativity agenda the disciplinary expertise,” with the statement “Through an independent research or creative agenda that reflects or enhances disciplinary expertise.”

        Because motion 5 subsumes motion 4, motion 4 dies for lack of a second.

      5. Motion 5:
        Background Concern motivating motion 5: The sentence is too long (p. 4). Also, the second part is unclear. Is the purpose to provide a rationale for why having an area of expertise matters or is it indicating something else we have to do?

        Motion 5: Separate the sentence beginning paragraph 2 into two sentences as follows: “Through an independent research and/or creative agenda that reflects or enhances disciplinary expertise, the faculty member maintains a vital “life of the mind” necessary for promoting an academic climate of inquiry and self-expression inside the classroom and on the campus as a whole. This ensures that the University can validate faculty expertise in its interactions with students and their families, the state of Virginia, accreditation agencies, donors and friends, and private, corporate, and governmental funding agencies.”

        After discussion, the motion was changed to: Separate the sentence beginning paragraph 2 into two sentences as follows: "Through an active research and/or creativity agenda that reflects or enhances disciplinary expertise, the faculty member maintains a vital "life of the mind" necessary for promoting an academic climate of inquiry and self-expression inside the classroom and on the campus as a whole. Thus, the University can validate faculty expertise in its interactions with students and their families, the state of Virginia, accreditation agencies, donors and friends, and private, corporate, and governmental funding agencies." Senators Underwood and Brash move the above. Vote in Favor: unanimous. Motion passes.

      6. Motion 6
        Background Concern motivating motion 6: "Faculty members who can demonstrate an active and on-going participation in these two activities…." is unclear (p. 4).

        Motion 6: Replace "in these two activities" from the statement above with "in an independent research or creativity agenda and in disciplinary expertise."

         After discussion, the motion was changed to: start a new paragraph at "Faculty members who can demonstrate" in the second paragraph. Change that sentence to read: "Faculty members who can demonstrate active and on-going participation in "a research and/or creativity agenda and in maintaining disciplinary expertise from the time of their appointment forward, will own the rights both for full consideration for professorial advancement at CNU and for resources that the University may have to facilitate these expectations." Vote in Favor: Unanimous. Motion Passes.

      7. Motion 7
        Background Concern motivating motion 7: Faculty have noted that the new Eval4 presents grants as "Highest Valued" and "Highly Valued" categories that are not mutually exclusive; the higher one has $40K grants and the lower of the two has 50K grants (p. 5). Lower should be "less than XX thousand" where higher is greater than the XX thousand threshold.

        Motion 7: Under "Highly Valued" replace the reference to $50,000 grants with “grants of less than $40,000.

        Fix typo so that they both say 40,000.

        Vote in Favor: unanimous. Motion passes.

      8. Motion 8:  The Faculty Senate requests a clarification from the provost on whether products of scholarship can stand as evidence of merit in more than one category of evaluation.

        Discussion Eval-4 committee members indicated that the provost has already answered this question: products of scholarship can stand as evidence in more than one area of evaluation. Motion 8 dies for lack of a second.

      9. Motion 9
        Background Section III: Service Area One: Campus Citizenship

        Concern motivating motion 9: The list of values begins with “Unique Contribution” (p. 6). What makes these contributions unique? Is this different than just saying they are highest valued activities and/or measures?

        Motion 9: Subsume the category of “Unique Contribution” under “Highest Valued Activities” since nothing can be more highly valued than that which is highest valued. After discussion, the motion is changed to: change unique contribution to uniquely valued under both college and department and university wide service. Senators Brash and Underwood move this. Vote in Favor: unanimous. Motion Passes.

      10. After the motions brought forth by Senator Underwood, President Wheeler opened the floor for other suggestions. Senators Rahim and Brunke move that conference proceedings be moved from Highest Valued to Highly Valued in Area One: Independent Research or Creativity Agenda, page 4. Vote In favor: Rahim, Carlson, Frucot, Xu, Brash. Against: Brunke, McMahon, Duskin, Lambert. Abstain: Underwood, Guajardo. Motion Passes.
      11. Senators Rahim and Brunke move to eliminate "substantive contribution to" from "substantive contribution to co-authored work" in highest value of Area One: Independent Research or Creativity Agenda, Highest Valued Activities on page 4 and to eliminate any references to co-authored work in the lower two categories. Vote in Favor: Rahim. Duskin, Xu, Brunke. Against: Carlson, Frucot, Lambert Guajardo, Underwood. Abstain: Brash, McMahon. Motion Fails.
      12. Senators Underwood and Brash move to add "any" to the top of page 2 from: "The fourth-year review expects a strong teaching record where by the candidate has addressed significant instructional problems in adapting to the University's expectations." to "The fourth-year review expects a strong teaching record where by the candidate has addressed any significant instructional problems in adapting to the University's expectations." Vote in favor: unanimous. Motion passes.

    Senators Underwood and Carlson move to accept the University Eval-4 as amended in this meeting with the above, and in the January 23 meeting in VI.C. Vote in Favor: unanimous. Motion Passes. The senate also asked President Wheeler to send ask the provost to report any suggested changes that he does not accept.
  6. New business
    There was no new business introduced at this meeting.

  7. Other
Meeting adjourns at 4:44.