INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
September 16, 2014
Minutes
Members Attending: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C. Olsen, V.
Sheets, K. Yousif
Ex-Officio Present: Provost J. Maynard
Ex-Officio Absent: President D. Bradley
Guests: C. Blevins, D. Hantzis
1. Administrative Reports:
a. Provost J. Maynard: No Report
2. Chair Report:
a. R. Guell:
i. I have emailed part of a report to the Senate indicating that we will pull
advising-related elements out of Thursday’s agenda and create a taskforce to
address them with a quick timeline. I have not yet had a conversation with the
Provost as to the specific population. It is possible we will discuss it at the
informal meeting next week.
ii. Some of you know there is a proposal milling about regarding culling holdings in
the library. I have been assured by Administration that once the proposal
becomes reality they will have it first reviewed by governance.
1. J. Maynard: This has been an ongoing act for several years. The new
language may have made people nervous, however. Culling holdings has
happened before; that’s how we obtain space in the library for other
activities.
iii. The Open Forum has yielded a number of issues:
1. The Administration has agreed to look at the $3000 pay for adjuncts
and keep it up to date.
2. A suggestion was also made regarding getting the chairpersons from
Faculty Senates and Councils of the public state universities together. I
sent out a query to see if any other Senates’/Councils’ chairs were
interested in meeting and they are. We will meet physically in
Indianapolis with details to be announced.
3. In terms of our adherence to 65 percent of credit hours being taught by
tenure-track faculty members, that was sent to FAC for monitoring.
3. Approval of the Minutes of September 9, 2014 A. Anderson, E. Hampton. Vote: 8-0-1
4. For Passage on to Senate
a. Biennial Review Draft #5 C. Olsen, S. Lamb. 6-3-0
i. C. MacDonald: The difference between drafts four and five is one phrase. Under
“Process,” in heading number 2, “Individual Faculty Member’s Responsibility,”
the Provost has allowed us to add “effective Fall 2015” in order to get these
changes through governance.
1. R. Guell: We were on draft number two when working on this last week,
so there have been many changes. As much as we’ve been buried in
this, the Senate only knows that version which currently exists and is in
force. The new evaluation will not be part of the package until the Fall
of 2015 teaching, which means they will not appear in this review
package that we prepare.
2. C. MacDonald: The next review will cover 2013 to 2015.
3. R. Guell: It will cover from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2015. Course
evaluations for the last academic year and this academic year will be in
the form we have them now. The evaluations that go into the Biennial
Review package will look very hodgepodgian and we know that.
4. E. Hampton: I have a question about the page limit for attachments.
5. C. MacDonald: This is an increase of one page from what we last did.
We would like to keep these to a minimum.
6. K. Bolinger: I’m not sure as to how I would account for rank. Two and
three seem of little consequence.
7. C. MacDonald: We spend a great deal of time last week discussing that
very thing. We believe it will make it more palatable for some of they
can rank all the areas.
8. R. Guell: To summarize, one ethos we had last time was that people
could put their best foot forward by ranking.
9. C. MacDonald: Under “Evaluation System”, number three, another
change is “no more than 1/7 (rounded at the midpoint) of a
department’s faculty will be designated as Contributing Exceptionally.”
Departments are welcome to nominate an additional member to the
college committee.
10. R. Guell: Can I allow C. Olsen to raise the issue he emailed me regarding
whether a college could bypass the primary nominee of a department
and reach beyond them to someone else in the department?
11. C. Olsen: Yes, a version of that. If we are allotting x-number to each
department, why is there even a college-level review? Say the History
department puts forth two people. If the college says we don’t think
one of your nominees is worth nominating can the college say no? What
happens?
12. R. Guell: Suppose there is an excellent department and a department of
“duds.” In the excellent department you are allowed two and in the dud
department I am allowed one. There is a spare in our college. So in this
circumstance, where the best of the duds is worse than the second and
third nominees of the excellent department, the third from the
excellent department can grab the brass ring and the best of the duds
gets nothing. That’s what the college committee is for.
13. C. Olsen: I’m talking about the reverse of that. Can the college
committee or the Dean say no or just not give the department anyone?
14. R. Guell: Absolutely. They can say no. I believe what we should say is the
college can’t reach beyond the department’s slotted nominee and say
no to them and yes to the ancillary nominee.
15. C. Olsen: I think the college/department relationship is more
problematic than we had before. We should try to spell out what the
college’s role is in that.
16. C. MacDonald: Would it be helpful to have language around that where
they cannot exclude the original person put forth in favor of the
additional nominee?
17. R. Guell: They can say no one but not take the ancillary nominee and
switch them.
18. K. Yousif: They have to follow intradepartmental rankings?
19. K. Bolinger: So your dud department puts one forward and as a college
committee we’re looking at nominees that outshine the dud who can
use that slot instead?
20. K. Yousif: They cannot disregard the department?
21. C. MacDonald: The college committee must respect the
intradepartmental ranking.
22. R. Guell: I will make a motion for that insertion into the document. R.
Guell, C. MacDonald,. Vote: 9-0-0
23. J. Maynard: I was thinking there was another way in paragraph five on
page four regarding dean and committee roles, that no faculty may be
recommended without both the college committee and the dean.
24. R. Guell: You can’t get there with the ancillary nominee. They can’t be
named “Contributing Exceptionally.” One-seventh is “Contributing
Exceptionally.” If we want to fix that language we have to start from the
top—the one-seventh plus the ancillary nominee.
ii. C. MacDonald: The first item on page three under “Process” has a due date for
departments no later than September 20. An addition under the second item,
“Individual Faculty Member’s Responsibility,” reads “effective Fall 2015.” There
are minor edits until the “Notification and Appeal Process” on page five. The
very last sentence in that section was changed to read “The Dean will forward
the final recommendation to the Provost for a final decision and the appeal
ends.”
iii. S. Lamb: On page two under “Evaluation of Faculty with Administrative
Assignments” we have “After receiving input from members of the department
committee and other appropriate individuals, deans will evaluate the
administrative assignment of chairpersons” and on page three under
“Evaluation System” it reads “This (improvement) plan must define specific
performance expectations and will be submitted to the Dean (or appropriate
supervisor) for approval.” It seems they aren’t quite in sync with each other. I
don’t think it’s the intent to exclude the department committee from the
evaluating chair.
1. C. MacDonald: It’s not up to the faculty to evaluate their administrative
assignment per se.
2. S. Lamb: Why wouldn’t you have the department committee?
3. R. Guell: They get the shot on the Triennial Review for chairs.
4. S. Lamb: But this is for performance pay.
5. R. Guell: Department faculty cannot by themselves evaluate them.
6. S. Lamb: But the information goes to the dean anyway.
7. R. Guell: The department committee evaluates their faculty’s behavior
and whether they are viewed as “Contributing Exceptionally” as a
faculty member.
8. S. Lamb: But we have fought time and again to be in the role of the
faculty. And chairs are answerable to faculty and the dean for their
administrative role. That is in the document and I would think in order
to ensure that the department committee also has a role in
assessing…it’s in on page two and out on page three.
9. K. Yousif: What if you just took out “for final determination” since it
sounds so final?
10. C. MacDonald: But that’s what the dean is doing.
11. S. Lamb: I do think that is an improvement but can we say on page two
“After receiving input from the department committee and other
appropriate individuals, deans will evaluate the administrative
assignment of chairpersons.” Motion to change page two, paragraph
two: S. Lamb, A. Anderson. Vote: 9-0-0
iv. C. MacDonald: On page five, under “Definitions and Guidelines,” we have
updated the date by which departments should establish guidelines for their
own faculty (December 1, 2014 versus May 1, 2013). We also added “A college
may choose to use a single set of guidelines for every department within that
college. If a department chooses not to create their own criteria, the following
University guidelines shall be adopted.”
1. K. Yousif: What is meant by the final sentence? Don’t we want
departments to create their own criteria? The “Meets Expectations”
criteria here doesn’t make sense otherwise.
2. C. MacDonald: If you don’t “Exceed Expectations” and you don’t “Not
Meet Expectations”, you “Meet Expectations” by these guidelines.
3. R. Guell: The only solution to say in “Meets Expectations” is to say
“Exceeds” does not “Meet.”
4. C. Olson: “Meets Expectations” is the category we should define. If we
define “Meets,” particularly in the departments, it should be obvious.
5. R. Guell: Three to four years ago this was made. The reason was if you
try to define “Meets Expectations” then you’re not going to be able to
look yourself in the mirror. There’s a whole range of definition here and
“Does Not Meet” is very low. The problem is there is no way of going
there. We tried two years ago and failed.
6. C. Olsen: We also didn’t have all that Handbook language.
7. R. Guell: It is only minimal expectations.
8. C. Olsen: We’re not talking about quality, we are talking about meeting
expectations.
9. C. MacDonald: I certainly have “expectations” about the quality of
teaching.
10. R. Guell: We define “thou shalt do at least this.”
11. S. Lamb: One example that we are considering in the College of Business
is to meet expectations in scholarship—you have to be academically
qualified, with at least two journal articles every five years, or
professionally qualified. The others we wrestled with and were unable
to do.
12. K. Yousif: I want to be clear: the document will only barely define the
parameters?
13. E. Hampton: On page three under “Department Review and Evaluation”
where it reads “Each department’s faculty are encouraged to define
clearly the criteria for Meets Expectations, in particular, which will be
the evaluation category for most faculty,” does that mean we’re giving
them an out?
14. R. Guell: Yes, of dealing with “Fails to Meet.”
15. K. Bolinger: A few years ago the difference between minimally
acceptable and meets expectations was wide. To define everything in
between is too much variance.
16. S. Lamb: The main purpose was to catch the miserable and reward the
exceptional. Most people fell within the broad category. The main
desire was to reward the exceptional.
17. E. Hampton: There is such a wide variety of “Meets” that the “Nearly
Exceptional” becomes frustrated.
18. C. MacDonald: I understand K. Yousif’s opinion and wonder if she wants
to make a motion.
19. K. Yousif: A language change would be worse. I would like to see that—I
understand why it’s there—but hopefully that will no longer be an issue.
v. C. MacDonald: The next substantive changes are on page seven, “Overall
Performance Evaluation.” This is the one piece in which I wasn’t clear on what
we decided after J. Maynard’s compromise. Is this correct? “2. Contributing
Below Expectations. A faculty member’s overall performance may be designated
as Contributing Below Expectations if he/she is judged Does Not Meet
Expectations in his/her first-ranked area; or in his/her second-ranked area,
when it is teaching/librarianship; or if similarly judged in two or more areas
(whatever their rank).”
1. S. Lamb: If you fail in the first area, you fail. If teaching is your second
area and you fail that, you fail.
2. E. Hampton: This draft allows more people to choose something besides
teaching.
3. C. Olson: Back to ranking—we are effectively changing this into a posttenure teaching evaluation.
4. R. Guell: That’s not true. Suppose you were merely adequate as a
teacher and you were a true scholar and spent your life on various
committees. You could meet two of three and compete in your
department. You would not be dinged and not have to do any
improvement plans. That faculty member is still eligible for an award.
5. S. Lamb: Wouldn’t you be “Exceeding” if you were nominated for
research?
6. R. Guell: You are potentially “Contributing Exceptionally” because you
have to meet the one-seventh standard.
7. K. Yousif: It’s understood you could rank the teaching as number two,
but if you failed two categories you wouldn’t automatically fail
whatever number two is. In this document I see now where if I rank
teaching as number two and you fail it, I would fail the whole thing.
8. R. Guell: That’s in keeping with the Administration’s desire to have you
fail overall if you fail in teaching. For the vast majority of us who don’t
have a different assignment, if you fail teaching, you fail overall.
9. K. Yousif: That’s the part I don’t support.
10. R. Guell: I’m going to make a Don Quixote-like motion on stipends
versus base pay. If you would like to make one on this, find a way, but I
think what you want is not quick enough.
11. K. Yousif: What about if you fail the second-ranked you don’t fail the
whole thing?
12. C. Olsen: I like K. Yousif’s point. I don’t like failing overall if you fail
teaching.
vi. R. Guell: So you would like to strike the “or in his/her second-ranked area, when
it is teaching/librarianship” on page seven. I would like to say this will come out
but the President may put it right back in. K. Yousif, C. Olsen. Vote: 3-6-0
vii. K. Yousif: What if the faculty member is on sabbatical? What if they’re in a
remediation year or what if they have had a bad year or semester?
1. E. Hampton: That’s why the Improvement Plan is for two years.
2. K. Bolinger: They get a Remediation Plan and another two years. You
have four bad years of teaching; that’s one college student’s entire
academic career right there.
3. R. Guell: There were no more than five faculty members on campus to
have been rated “Below Expectations.”
viii. Motion to switch from base pay to stipend. R. Guell, C. Olsen. Vote 3-6-0
ix. C. MacDonald: Regarding “Improvement Plans” under the section
“Consequences of the Review Process:” we just pulled them out into separate
sections and labeled them as such, putting the consequences together. Not
much has changed, but it has been rearranged.
1. R. Guell: Are there any suggested edits to this? Can we vote on the
entire document?
2. K. Bolinger: I want you to know I can’t support the entire document on
Thursday. The 1/7 is artificial on the departmental level. I could support
the 1/7 at the college level. It’s an absurd assumption.
3. S. Lamb: The only thing I’d like to question is under “Improvement
Plans,” where the first sentence reads “will allocate funds equivalent to
one percent.”
4. R. Guell: From “will” to “may” allocate funds? Motion to change “will”
to “may.” S. Lamb, C. MacDonald. Vote: 9-0-0
x. C. MacDonald: Before we call the question, I did want to say that this was very
difficult and I think no one is entirely happy, but I hope it is better than the last
one. We have two options: do we fall back on what was written the last time or
do we leave the President to write what he feels is right? If we want this to
remain faculty-driven we should do this.
1. C. Olsen: I will vote against. I think we have lost the direction of the
document.
2. R. Guell: I would like to extend my very deep and sincere appreciation to
C. Olsen and C. MacDonald who worked very hard on this document
and have made principal concerns well-known. As exasperated as I was,
I am gratified we have civil colleagues who can work through these
tough issues and can agree to disagree.
3. C. Olsen: I appreciate your indulgence.
4. S. Lamb: Everyone has really come from the heart on this and has been
driven by their morality.
b. Handbook Change Suggestions from the Taskforce: D. Hantzis (FAC), C. Blevins (SAC), V.
Sheets, & J. Maynard (Taskforce)
i. R. Guell: The motion to change the Handbook language, along with the original
language is given in the document with large print. Let’s begin with 310.1
Teaching Responsibilities. K. Bolinger, A. Anderson. Vote: 9-0-0
ii. K. Bolinger: About the additional language regarding dissertation hours—does
that account for 899 that we don’t get now?
iii. C. MacDonald: The point was to illuminate examples that in terms of what
would be considered in terms of requiring a syllabus and course evaluations.
iv. K. Bolinger: Would it also allow you to use it as part of a load?
v. C. MacDonald: No.
vi. K. Bolinger: Last year I had students cranking out unaccounted 899 hours.
vii. C. MacDonald: It doesn’t say anything about dissertation hours counting
towards load.
viii. V. Sheets: It was about the fact that people define “course” as any section
worth a credit, which meant everything had to have a syllabus.
ix. K. Bolinger: I would take it then to mean I have the latitude to count that in with
teaching responsibilities.
x. V. Sheets: That’s a workload issue.
xi. J. Maynard: That flexibility does exist already but doesn’t define it one way or
another.
xii. R. Guell: D. Hantzis, any comments?
xiii. D. Hantzis: A member of FAC who works in Masters programs thought it
important to include “thesis hours.” We understand the purpose and agreed
entirely with it.
xiv. C. Blevins: One was nominally opposed to it. She was not comfortable with it. It
was notable that her objection was because she needed time to digest it. Her
comment was that there is some expertise required for some accredited
programs. I think she meant in terms of requirements for courses. Friday I sent
these out again and I have had a lot of non-response. They basically are saying,
“We have more questions.” At this point none of the comments these people
said had anything major.
xv. S. Lamb: There is a very minor issue—the first and second sentences don’t flow
well together. Couldn’t there be separate paragraphs starting at “When?”
xvi. R. Guell: Every paragraph has its own section number and that would
necessitate renumbering of the entire document.
xvii. C. MacDonald: There’s no better place to put it.
xviii. R. Guell: The first thing I wish to ask—is there anything you can imagine
happening on Thursday that would interrupt us from passing each one of these?
I don’t want to put before Senate anything that would make anyone
uncomfortable. I believe the Board will appreciate us taking this up as quickly as
possible. The currency we are putting in the bank is worth it. I want to get
through as many as possible.
xix. Recommended Change to 310.1.3 “Methods of Instruction” K. Bolinger, A.
Anderson. Vote: 9-0-0
1. D. Hantzis: That was one we offered no changes on.
2. J. Maynard: Should not this leave the option that departmental faculty
teach a course with a particular methodology? For example if PSY101 is
revised, to include a specific method that everyone who teaches it
should use, should not that dictate the department’s faculty as a body
agree on a particular body of teaching?
3. R. Guell: I would ask your indulgence that it will be sent immediately to
FAC as a charge. This needs to pass and that is a potential torpedo for
faculty. I want it fully vetted. I agree but it is a Trojan Horse to this
motion.
4. K. Bolinger: It’s a communal course.
5. R. Guell: The last sentence says “Teaching method is the responsibility
of the individual faculty member.” The Provost is saying it is not the
purview of the individual.
6. K. Bolinger: Responsibility and authority are the same word? How do
you interpret that? The nature and content of the course may indicate
that we blend into a certain method to work together.
7. S. Lamb: I think you read it into there but it’s not perfectly clear. I would
rather have the language that the department may require that.
8. D. Hantzis: I think FAC would suggest the first sentence is the most
important in terms of FAC perspective. Selection of content can be
separate from pedagogy. No one can tell me how to speak, how to
move around the room…my pedagogy is my movement and my voice.
9. J. Maynard: I don’t disagree with that at all. If the intent is somewhere
documented it’s covered.
xx. Recommended Creation of 310.1.3.1 “Course Evaluations” C. MacDonald, S.
Lamb. Vote: 9-0-0
1. R. Guell: The definition of the course evaluation questions selected by
the university here again means it will not go into effect until the
questions have gone through governance process, and not until Fall
2015.
2. S. Lamb: There has always been debate about summary results of
evaluations going to department chairs and academic deans.
3. R. Guell: This will declare unambiguously that they are not the sole
property of the individual faculty member. The controversy is right out
front. No one is hiding anything. There are no hidden definitions.
4. D. Hantzis: We talked about it at FAC meetings and had time to consider
things. There might not be absolute clarity. The word “summary” is an
adjective so it implies there are other results.
5. R. Guell: There are individual comments and those are not summary
results.
6. D. Hantzis: That’s what we decided it meant. The Senate may ask what
isn’t provided.
7. K. Bolinger: Sometimes things can be washed out, and summary results
on the mean can not be so great but if you were to look at actual
individual scores they tell a different story. So we’re saying that’s not
available?
8. R. Guell: They can include measures of distribution.
9. D. Hantzis: The faculty member can share all the rest of that in a
portfolio.
10. S. Lamb: Could we say results other than comments?
11. R. Guell: Are you trying to exclude written comments?
12. S. Lamb: I thought that was the problem.
13. D. Hantzis: We thought it was the raw data, the handwritten comments.
But on SIRs the typed comments came with the summary results.
14. R. Guell: The department chair can drill down to individual responses.
15. D. Hantzis: How is that not happening?
16. V. Sheets: Where it says “Course evaluations may be collected in person
or via the web…” shouldn’t that be “will?”
xxi. Recommended Creation of 310.1.3.2 “Instructional Evaluation” V. Sheets, C.
Olsen. Vote: 9-0-0
1. R. Guell: This contains the same caveat with regard to the Fall of 2015.
2. D. Hantzis: The only thing I think will come up from L. Henson is to ask
where it will be spelled out how it impacts temporary faculty. It’s not
clear where temporary faculty are in these processes.
3. C. Blevins: One was concerned about the weight of evaluations.
xxii. Recommended Creation of 310.1.3.3 regarding the Faculty Center for Teaching
Excellence. S. Lamb, V. Sheets. Vote: 9-0-0
xxiii. Recommended Change to 310.1.5 “Grades and Standards” 8-1-0
1. R. Guell: Clarification was made in the penultimate sentence from FAC’s
recommendation to specify that it’s the timeline for feedback rather
than grades that applies to qualitative feedback.
2. D. Hantzis: We wanted qualitative comments to be available on
Blackboard but you caught us.
3. E. Hampton: In addition to the grade, they have to know what you have
to say about their work.
4. R. Guell: The grade and the reason why within two weeks, and put the
grade in Blackboard. We disagree with the putting comments in
Blackboard.
5. A. Anderson: It didn’t say Blackboard recommended and other systems
are okay.
6. R. Guell: This specifies grades to students in Blackboard.
7. A. Anderson: I don’t use Blackboard. I use another system. In the studio
Blackboard isn’t a feasible option. They have a system that tells me
where they’re at. To put it on Blackboard is one more thing to do. Other
studio faculty feel the same way.
8. V. Sheets: I would argue, and I think the Taskforce in particular, thought
there needs to be a standard system so the student can expect to look
in one place and the differences between faculty is what SGA found
inefficient.
9. D. Hantzis: We do need integration with Blackboard and other systems.
Blackboard and Banner, for example.
10. K. Bolinger: The minute we pass that, ninety percent of the faculty will
not be in compliance.
11. R. Guell: It only requires that you specify periods longer than two weeks
in your syllabus. The earliest this would take effect would be the Spring
semester because the Board will not pass it until their meeting in
October.
12. J. Maynard: May I suggest the Fall of 2015?
13. V. Sheets: I think we should make available some training and if you
could be prepared to announce that at Senate, because this will be a
problematic issue.
14. R. Guell: I know K. Bigler is very interested in the response concerning
this issue.
15. C. Blevins: I was not familiar with Blackboard and I feel there does need
to be a training session set up.
16. D. Hantzis: I was able to do beta testing on Mobile Blackboard. Ms.
Bigler said the mobile app is almost completely useless for faculty.
Blackboard is currently working on a mobile version only for faculty.
17. R. Guell: It would be helpful to be able to reset online quizzes on one’s
phone.
xxiv. Recommended Change to 310.1.14 “Class Attendance and Reports” E. Hampton,
K. Bolinger. Vote: 8-1-0
1. R. Guell: D. Hantzis, you changed the lettering from how it reads in the
Taskforce recommendation.
2. D. Hantzis: That was just a formatting error.
3. K. Bolinger: About C, I think we need some way to specify we are talking
about not admitting non-enrolled students because we have people
who come and speak to classes.
4. D. Hantzis: In the role of student?
5. K. Bolinger: It says only officially enrolled students can attend class.
6. C. MacDonald: “Permit only students who are officially enrolled?”
7. R. Guell: The issue is not, “Can guests who are not students attend?”
The issue is, “Please, my financial aid hasn’t come through.”
8. D. Hantzis: I think people will read that the exclusion applies.
9. C. MacDonald: What we have right now is equally as problematic.
10. R. Guell: Can we have “only those students who are officially enrolled?”
Any other comments?
11. C. Blevins: Nothing from SAC.
12. K. Yousif: I don’t like the language of excused absences. It’s not enough
to slow it down.
13. R. Guell: So everyone understands the issue with “work required” and
why it was excised—there was debate as to what military obligations
weren’t required.
xxv. Recommended Change to 310.1.16 “Office Hours” K. Bolinger, V. Sheets 9-0-0
1. D. Hantzis: There was dialogue regarding “regularly” versus
“reasonably” versus “routinely.” The adverb is not needed at all. We
shall be available. It just needs to be available to meet the needs. We
did have a larger conversation about continuing a commitment to a
physical presence in the office, which downplays the amount of faculty
consultation that occurs virtually. We couldn’t solve that problem. We
need to eventually solve that. L. Henson will ask if there are no
requirements of temporary faculty to post hours. She feels she should
be expected to post hours.
2. R. Guell: That sentence is pointed out: “Regular faculty members shall
notify the departmental chair of their office hours and shall post their
hours on or near their office doors.” Striking “regular” ignores the fact
that some faculty don’t have offices.
3. K. Yousif: Does everyone who teaches have an office?
4. C. MacDonald: No, and there are some who never come to Terre Haute.
5. J. Maynard: Some simply teach and go home.
6. D. Hantzis: If L. Henson raised this it would give the Senate room to
suggest that maybe these people should have offices.
7. R. Guell: I suggest striking the word “ regular.” If we do that we could
make it “on or near departmental doors.” If you have a faculty member
who’s teaching someplace else and may be using the conference room
across the hall and posting hours in the department, it could solve the
issue.
8. K. Yousif: We post our distance faculty’s office hours.
9. R. Guell: That paragraph is mostly new text. “Faculty members should
post office hours on or near their doors.”
10. D. Hantzis: I’m concerned that it prevents faculty from having hours.
11. J. Maynard: “According to the needs of the department and the
courses.” That permits that to occur.
12. D. Hantzis: We still need to notify the chair and post them.
13. C. Blevins: This is the first semester that we have established office
hours in the library and established times to help faculty rather than
have faculty just go to the library. This will be of particular interest to
the library because we have never had office hours before.
14. K. Bolinger: What about making it known to their students?
15. C. MacDonald: It needs to be more than students.
16. R. Guell: We need to include “Temporary faculty without an office
should post office hours.” It’s a phrase unto itself.
17. D. Hantzis: We are saying every faculty member must be in the
department somewhere.
18. C. MacDonald: We aren’t addressing that temporary faculty need to
notify department chairs.
19. D. Hantzis: Thus taking out “regular.”
xxvi. Recommended Creation of 310.1.17 “Telephone/Email” A. Anderson, C. Olsen.
Vote: 9-0-0
1. D. Hantzis: The Senate will have questions about the phrase “for
personal reasons.”
2. R. Guell: “For personal reasons” was struck.
3. V. Sheets: It shouldn’t have been there to begin with.
4. D. Hantzis: I only think that if faculty were encouraged to prefer a type
of communication which helps students…
5. E. Hampton: Is the intent to tell faculty “you have to get back with
students” or “we will not respond at 3:00am?”
6. V. Sheets: We had to spell out that they have to be available.
7. R. Guell: There is a faculty member on campus who will not let email
through. It’s not in the Handbook that you have to keep your email
cleaned out.
8. K. Yousif: That issue came up with all three groups—faculty, staff, and
students—that they couldn’t get various groups to respond to them.
9. E. Hampton: I think the “timely fashion” being an unknown could be
trouble in the Senate.
10. C. MacDonald: In the Distance Education policy a year or two ago, it
stated “Faculty have to respond within 48 hours?”
11. R. Guell: Reasonable then has to be specified. In a three-week class, four
days is unreasonable, but in a 15-week class it is reasonable.
12. D. Hantzis: I think it would be good for faculty’s syllabi to include that.
Some students think timely is five minutes.
5. Adjournment 4:48pm