Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
September 29, 2010
Professor Riddick called the meeting to order at 2:20
Present: Professors Leigh Riddick, Jim Girard, Lyn Stallings, Jim Girard, Naomi Baron, Michael
Black, Phil Brenner, Al Cheh, Joe Dent, Larry Engel, Clement Ho, Phil Jacoby, Jonathan
Loesberg, Jie Lu, Stacey Marien, Sarah Menke-Fish, Mary Mintz, Dan Mullins, Lenny
Steinhorn, Michael Wilkerson, Provost Scott Bass and Dean Peres.
Welcome and Introduction, Leigh Riddick
Chair’s Report
Professor Riddick said that the majority of the Senate Committees have filled all the open seats
for 2012. There are a few seats still vacant but the committees are working to fill them quickly.
The election for the Kogod School of Business (KSB) Dean Search Committee is underway.
Professor Riddick also informed the Senators of the upcoming election for the Faculty Hearing
Committee and the Committee on Faculty Equity and Grievances. There are five positions open
on the Hearing Committee and nominees are George Arnold, University Library; Barbara Bird,
KSB; Jack Childs, College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)/Language & Foreign Studies; Zehra
Peynircioglu, CAS/Psychology; and Michael Simpson, KSB. For the Committee on Faculty
Equity and Grievances, the nominee is John Douglass, School of Communications (SoC).
Professor Riddick will report the results of the elections as soon as they are completed.
Provost Bass reported that the new position for the Dean of Washington Professional
Development and Training (WPDT), has been filled by Dr. Donna Fish effective October 4,
2010. Dr. Fish has an extensive background in leadership of and accomplishments in areas of
continuing education, workforce development, curriculum development and more. Provost Bass
invited the members of the Senate to welcome Dr. Fish to the University.
Dean Peres reported on the proposed class schedule changes. These changes have several
advantages for the students and faculty. The students will be able to take early classes if they are
working or participating in internships. The extra morning and evening slots will provide more
opportunities for offering required subjects and give faculty more teaching options. The Senators
raised the issue of how the hours of the library would be adjusted to accommodate the new
schedule during the first three weeks in the semester and during periods when the library is not
open. Finally, a Senator raised the issue of classes possibly conflicting with meeting times on
Wednesday mornings between 9:00 and 11:00 as a concern since many committees and
departments meet at this time. Over all the Senators agreed that, with modifications, this will be
an advantageous change.
Faculty Senate • September 29 Minutes
Page 1 of 3
The “sense of Senate” for support of the schedule change by vote: VOTED, 17 in favor, 0
opposed and 1 abstention.
Provost Bass stated the new schedule would be implemented in the fall of 2011.
General Education Task Force Report
Dean Peres provided the Senators with the complete General Education Task Force report
(without tables) and a two page summary of recommendations coming out of the report. Dean
Peres stated that the General Education Task Force is trying to incorporate ways for students that
have double majors or a major and a minor to be able to take electives. The purpose is to allow
the students to examine interests in other areas outside their field of study. She also said that the
committee is discussing a sophomore seminar. The conclusion of the Task Force was that our
General Education structure was ahead of the rest of our colleagues in many dimensions.
Changes that will be suggested include more flexibility in the sequence of options within each
area of General Education and directing the options toward focusing on “Ways of Learning and
Thinking” rather than areas of study. Please refer to the “Key Recommendations” document
attached with the meeting minutes for details.
Review of the Faculty manual
Professor Lyn Stallings presented proposals for amendments to the Faculty Manual, Sections 117.
Section 11f. The proposed language change (in italics below) in section 11f will charge each
Committee on Faculty Actions representative to vote at his or her teaching unit level, and not at
the level of the CFA. The rationale behind the proposal was that all eligible senior faculty
should vote on the file when it is at the teaching unit level of review.
Committee on Faculty Actions Review
The committee will review the file and the previous recommendations. In the interest
of equity, the committee will also determine if the file has been handled according to
the written procedures of the unit and the Manual. The committee may choose to
request additional information from relevant persons or committees involved in the
review at earlier stages. Such requests and any responses (or summaries thereof) must
be included in the file. The CFA chair will write a recommendation that reports the
vote count for each of the criteria and reflects the deliberations of the committee,
including the majority and minority opinions, regarding the strengths and weaknesses
identified in the file. If a member of the CFA is eligible to vote on a faculty action at
the unit level of review, the CFA member will vote at the unit level of review and will
not vote at the CFA level of review. In that case, the CFA member will serve as an
informational resource for the CFA.
The Senate VOTED to accept the change in language in section 11f, 12 in favor, 5 opposed
and 1 abstain.
Faculty Senate • September 29 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Section 5 a iii: The proposed language change is to add a third bullet to the charges of the
Committee on Faculty Action that includes reviewing term faculty promotion to Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor, or Full Professor.
• To evaluate and review, in accordance with the criteria set
forth in this Manual, all faculty actions involving the
reappointment with promotion to Assistant Professor,
Associate Professor, or Full Professor of term faculty and to
make recommendations on all such actions to the Dean of
Academic Affairs
The Senate VOTED to add the third bullet in section 5a iii, xxxxxxxx (check with Jim and
Leigh)
Section 11a (third paragraph). The proposed language change is to allow more flexibility in how
academic units discuss the evaluation of a faculty member.
In the interest of fairness, the principle is that no person shall have more than a single
vote in the evaluation of a faculty member.
The Senate VOTED to clarify language in section 11a, 16 in favor, 2 opposed, and 0 abstain.
Section11d. The proposed rationale is to allow academic units the flexibility to broaden
participation in who provides suggestions about the file. However, with the exception of teaching
unit chairs, all faculty members who vote in reviews must be tenured and preferably hold a rank
higher than that of the candidate.
Each academic unit should provide written procedures for the internal review of candidates’
files. With the exception of teaching unit chairs, all faculty members who vote in reviews must
be tenured and, preferably, hold a rank higher than that of the candidate."
The Senate VOTED to change the language in section 11d, 12 in favor, 2 opposed and 2
abstain.
The remainder of the meeting was spent revising Sections 18-24 the Revisions to the Faculty
Manual Part II. See memorandum to all faculty dated October 4, 2010, “Summary of the Senate
Review of Faculty Input Draft Manual Part II and Proposed Amendments to Current Faculty
Manual,” for a summary of the revisions.
The meeting adjourned 4:45p.m.
Faculty Senate • September 29 Minutes
Page 3 of 3