INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
October 14, 2014
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C. Olsen, V. Sheets, K.
Yousif
Member Absent: A. Anderson
Ex-Officio Present: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
Guests: D. Hantzis, R. Lotspeich, L. Spence
1. Administrative Reports:
a. D. Bradley:
i. Homecoming went very well; for the most part, it rained when it was acceptable
to rain. The participation by faculty and staff in Tent City was very good and
well-attended by many. I thank everyone for being a part of that.
ii. I spent yesterday lobbying two Commissioners and two Legislators on behalf of
our budget.
1. R. Guell: Is a $4 million trim more likely?
2. D. Bradley: I am trying to impart that, but many conversations are futile,
but I want to be able to say to Luke Kenley, “Yes, Senator, I did talk to
them and convey our concerns.” We will know probably before
Thanksgiving what the Commission’s actual recommendation is. They
have listened to every district except Vincennes and will have a special
meeting. They have not made a formal decision on capital or operating
budget requests.
3. There is also a Board of Trustees single-item meeting on the 23rd on
bond refunding.
b. J. Maynard: The deans had a competition for the best Homecoming exhibit and the
winner will be announced on Thursday.
2. Chair Report:
a. R. Guell: In terms of my report, on Thursday we take up a couple of elements of our
previous list of Handbook changes that some folks had concerns with. Regarding the
universality of Blackboard, I am cajoling the administration and the Registrar to do what
is necessary so in 2015 we are in a position where every faculty member is entering
grades into Blackboard and they are automatically exported to other places. This is going
1
to require priority on the project list, that is, for those folks in OIT and the Office of
Registration and Records. I am meeting with A. Hay, L. Spence, the President, and the
Provost on Friday to try and put that functionality on the top of the list. I think it is vital
to have that piece on order to sell this to the faculty. That data can be used in many
places, especially if applied in a timely fashion.
b. R. Guell: If you could pass my iPad to the President, what you are looking at, Dan, is
what appears on the Handbook web page for the Whistleblower Policy. It replaces the
existing language with the proposed language and asks for comment about that section.
If you go to the Handbook and click on “Whistleblower Policy,” what comes up is “This
is what we’d like it to be” and “What do you think?” The original language needs to be
there.
i. D. Bradley: My guess is it’s a glitch. It’s a legitimate way to solicit input, but
the original language needs to be there.
ii. R. Guell: I think that was the intent. One could read it to assume the work the
Handbook in italics is published rather than being italicized to indicate that it is
the new language. I would ask that the original language be there.
c. R. Guell: My third concern comes from a department chair who beseeches
Administration to acknowledge that many things have gone into the Handbook and are
going into the Handbook that specify actions taken when faculty fail to perform a certain
duty, and that recent events caused him concern regarding whether Administration
would follow the Handbook as closely regarding imposing the discipline that is
warranted in those cases. There is a series of new elements in the Handbook, and we are
about to have others, that proscribe actions with faculty with regard to having a syllabus,
two weeks getting work back to students, uploading grades to Blackboard, all those
things. There may be disciplinary action with failure to do so. He wants to beseech the
administration to follow Handbook policy when faculty fail.
i. D. Bradley: That will happen. I would say that the ability for us to assess
whether faculty are meeting those requirements will depend on the chair in
particular being aware of what’s going on.
3. Approval of the Minutes of October 7, 2014 V. Sheets, K. Bolinger. Vote: 8-0-0
4. Report from AAUP: R. Lotspeich
a. 1. Student Evaluations of Instructors: Several members of AAUP-ISU Chapter question
whether student evaluations of instructors—such as the standard SIR reports—are valid
indicators of the quality of instruction. Yet these are the standard tool for evaluating
teaching quality at ISU. The AAUP officers are concerned that most administrators and
many faculty members accept this measure of instructional quality without an
appropriate critical review of the process by which the data are generated, which implies
both random variability and inherent bias. Given that ISU is currently undertaking an
extensive revision of the survey instrument that will be used in future, it seems like an
appropriate time to examine serious research on student surveys used to evaluate
instructional quality. We urge faculty and administrators to carefully consider the
statistical research on student evaluation of instructors in developing a policy for
assessing instructional quality.
2
b. 2. Collegiality as a Criterion of Faculty Performance: The local chapter was recently
consulted on a department’s development of promotion and tenure guidelines, which
included collegiality as a criterion of faculty performance. Our opinion was that all
reference to collegiality as a criterion should be deleted from their guidelines. This
advice was followed, but we want to raise this as a broader concern across the entire
campus. AAUP Policy Documents and Reports (the AAUP “Redbook”) contains a
cogent statement on the drawbacks of including collegiality as a criterion. The Executive
Committee of the local chapter finds it compelling, and we referenced this document in
our opinion to the department. While we do not believe that ISU should slavishly follow
all pronouncements of the national organization without a critical review, in this case we
believe the recommended best practice from Committee A is appropriate for ISU and
should be respected.
i. R. Guell: A department had in their draft Promotion and Tenure document
collegiality as an element that, as I think because of AAUP’s concern, and as a
result of my pledge to take it to the Senate floor, was pulled by the college
committee.
ii. S. Lamb: To follow, that has been a concern of faculty and the Faculty Senate
from day one, and we have shared the same opinion that AAUP expresses.
While it can be important for productivity and impacts upon research and
teaching, as a standalone descriptor of an individual we have always argued
against its inclusion, has always been accepted grudgingly by the administration.
It’s a continual fight and a concern of all faculty and AAUP.
iii. E. Hampton: Was it evaluative component or in the document itself?
iv. R. Guell: Evaluative and could have been determinative.
v. K. Bolinger: You don’t wish it to be part of an evaluation but are okay with a
separate civility or collegiality policy? Or are you against that in any measure?
vi. R. Lotspeich: We were dealing with it specific to evaluative for promotion and
tenure. Not tying it to a separate policy. I do think civility is important. I don’t
think a formal policy will express that.
vii. S. Lamb: That is always a concern. We do run into situations where I think once
you begin down that path…
viii. R. Guell: If the administration wishes us to take up a civility policy we will do it
civilly and courteously through a faculty governance process.
ix. D. Bradley: The bottom line is that tenure is a qualitative decision. Whether we
have a policy on civility and collegiality or not, those traits are always going to
be considered at every level.
x. R. Lotspeich: Our position would be that they shouldn’t be considered
separately.
xi. D. Bradley: It’s a whole that is being evaluated. Two people with the same level
of collegiality and civility wouldn’t necessarily get the same result. People have
different contributions.
xii. R. Lotspeich: The AAUP statement says it is an issue, but difficult to examine in
an objective way. When collegiality hampers the traditional domains, then it is
important.
3
xiii. K. Bolinger: Individually, but not as a department? Collegiality can affect a
department’s ability to work toward common goals.
xiv. S. Lamb: That can be reflected in the service component, too.
xv. R. Lotspeich: It’s difficult to have an effective policy on that. Cases of
outrageous incivility should be addressed through grievances.
c. R. Lotspeich: 3. Lack of Due Process in Addressing Allegations of Deficient Faculty
Performance: Officers in the local chapter have been asked to give counsel regarding
recent actions taken toward addressing allegations of deficient faculty performance. We
do not want to raise the details of the case here, but we do want to express an overriding
concern that applies more widely, which is the importance of following due process. We
understand that our colleagues sometimes behave badly and sometimes are deficient in
performance of their duties. Those deficiencies need to be addressed, but any
disciplinary actions should be undertaken following a specified set of rules and norms—
which we broadly call due process.
d. There are two aspects of how the recent case was handled that are particularly
troublesome. First, provisions in the University Handbook seem to have been completely
ignored. Second, evidence cited in support of the disciplinary action has been kept
secret. A basic principle of due process is that evidence used to justify a disciplinary
action should be made available to the accused individual so that they have an
appropriate opportunity to respond to the evidence. AAUP-ISU Chapter urges faculty
leaders and administrators to insist on adherence to due process principles in such
circumstances.
i. D. Bradley: I would suggest, and J. Maynard feel free to comment, that no
disciplinary action has been taken in this particular case. A change in teaching
assignment has been made. If there is a need for a disciplinary action, due
process will be followed accordingly.
ii. R. Guell: I think it is impossible to read the letter in question as anything other
than disciplinary. I will leave it there and take it privately if necessary.
iii. S. Lamb: These last two concerns you have brought to us have been well-talked
about and are on the table.
iv. R. Lotspeich: We are pleased to hear that.
5. Report from OIT on Security Issues and on Blackboard/Mapworks/Banner Linkage Attempts: L.
Spence
a. R. Guell: I have asked L. Spence here to join us on two topics: one is network security
issues and what actions OIT has already taken and will be taking with regard to faculty
computers soon; and the Blackboard/Mapworks/Banner linkage discussion.
b. L. Spence: On the side of security issues, this broadly has to do with our implementation
of a tool, Microsoft Systems Center. We have the capability now to manage the
Windows environment more actively than in the past. We set up workstations to be as
secure as we could, but the way we set up the workstations, anybody had administrative
rights, but if malware was downloaded it had the opportunity to damage machines
because it was open to those changes. This approach and tool will allow us to more
actively manage the environment. The goals are better data security and better reliability.
In starting to use it we have to take a couple of specific actions. One is to implement the
4
first round of a continuous set of procedures that we require—your Windows updates
that occur on a monthly basis. We had to play catch-up because people had not updated
up to 500 of these patches. We can see where people are in regards to these patches with
this tool. We have worked with some to bring it down and apply the patches. When you
have many of these patches, it is more complex, time consuming, and failure-prone.
Going forward we will do this monthly and it will be easier. In the catch-up process we
could have done a better job of communication. We could have prepared people better.
We know after help from R. Guell and D. Malooley we need to refine our messaging to
be clearer. What will happen from now on is on the second Tuesday of the month
Windows delivers its patches. Microsoft distributes them monthly. We will take a week
to test those patches internally and on the Wednesday following the third Tuesday of the
month we will release them to you. You will be able to click on the taskbar and it will
give you a choice to update to do later. Then you will have 4 hours from then in which to
restart your machine. We gave four hours as a window in the hope that in any four hour
window it would be enough time to choose that period of time to restart.
i. R. Guell: What is the typical timeline from having to give up the machine to the
patches to being able to work with it again?
ii. L. Spence: It should be minutes, not the more complex processes that happened
in the past. The catch-up event was different. Some updates take longer by
nature.
iii. R. Guell: Do we pretest these patches to make sure they don’t break Kronos,
Banner, Blackboard, etc.?
iv. L. Spence: We try to do that to make sure they work with our major software.
v. V. Sheets: Why is it essential I restart my computer right then? Can I do it at the
end of the day?
vi. L. Spence: You can wait until the end of the day. We can choose to make the
timeline 8 hours instead of 4.
vii. R. Guell: Leave the machine in the dock and the last thing you do before you
leave is tell it to update. I take it home daily and tried to do it at home and it
doesn’t work.
viii. L. Spence: It now works from home. The certifications were not available from
off-campus but they are now. You can adopt any process you like. We hope you
can make your own schedule, and the updates won’t take a long time.
c. R. Guell: I have three devices here (a smartphone, an iPad, and a flashdrive), and after I
lost admin rights I would have to call someone to attach each of these to my machine?
Can you tell me what the commitment is to when we lose admin rights to getting
someone at the other end of the phone to do the installations?
i. L. Spence: That is an environment we have to do more exploration in. Ideally we
would be able to create an environment in which primarily you are secure but
have the wherewithal to do what you need to do. If you need software you can
download it yourself via the network. The approach can’t be too onerous and has
to be easy for people. We have taken away the admin rights for machines in
administrative areas, such as Financial Aid, that have significant risks given the
data they are dealing with. They often have less need administrator rights. We
5
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
will have to investigate in your environment what your situations are. We need
to work with a couple of academic units to see what the issues are in order to
determine what we would be able to implement. Managing reliability and
benefits versus flexibility. We need to take the right approach.
R. Guell: Does anyone have any security-related questions?
V. Sheets: Does this mean I need administrative approval every time it put in a
new jump drive?
R. Guell: It’s a device driver. Most of them are generic device drivers which are
largely the same. If you buy a new phone and need to preserve data you need
your computer to do that.
L. Spence: The levels are trying to create an environment where you can do as
much as you can in self-service mode. The next level is, can we assist remotely?
The third is where we would have to come and see you. The volume of requests
and the nature of the issue will come into play.
R. Guell: I ask that C. MacDonald write something in the Officer’s Musings and
send a paragraph to you, just to sort out what we were talking about.
V. Sheets: It would be helpful, given my lack of technological literacy, to have
some clarity about what this means. Lack of administrative privilege means I
can’t download software? I carry lectures on a jump drive I may not be able to
plug in.
C. Olsen: We need examples. It would help a lot. The second part of this will
come down to what extent do we see this as we can’t do anything but work on
them. Sometimes I have to download something to prepare for a class at
midnight. To what extent are these computers called our own? If we all have to
buy our own personal laptops it will be an issue.
K. Yousif: In all venues, I am asking for a helpline or a space where faculty can
go. I am not technologically savvy. I have a hard time getting help, and I don’t
think it’s just anecdotal. The student staff aren’t faculty, and aren’t savvy to
faculty problems. Even if it’s only for an hour a day, we need a physical space or
a call line where faculty issues are addressed.
K. Bolinger: About faculty laptops and computers in the classroom—are these
going to be equally controlled so I won’t be able to adjust on the fly what I need
in class?
L. Spence: I believe we manage those from DeepFreeze. We manage with a
different tool and we think we’ll stick with it.
R. Guell: The security feature with the podiums is that when it reboots it goes
right back to the original image.
L. Spence: I have reached out to Microsoft’s representative about some aspects
of this. I wanted to know about what other campuses have done and how they
made peace with stability and security versus flexibility. Hopefully we will have
more examples of how to do this the best way. The communication you are
asking for is certainly appropriate. Any help you can give us would be good. It
will largely be a volume thing and basically quite personal. The small group we
6
studied probably did not get the full picture. We would like partners to help us
understand.
d. R. Guell: The other topic: linking data between Blackboard, MapWorks, and Banner.
i. L. Spence: We are working that bidirectional effort right now. We are talking
with vendor partners to integrate the pull of grades from Blackboard to Banner.
There is some delivered functionality from Blackboard that is out there…the
question is will they meet their date and will work it for us. At least one
alternative solution is to pull grades from Blackboard into an Excel spreadsheet
and take them to Banner. We are trying to figure out which way is best by fall of
2015 to make sure faculty don’t have to reenter the same grades into separate
programs. We could hit roadblocks but we are talking to vendors right now.
ii. R. Guell: For those who have not experienced the project list, every unit has
issues they need solved yesterday—or the month before—there is a meeting of
the main OIT people from Payroll and Financial Aid and HR and others to
allocate the scarce resource of programmer time. I have been, initially not
civilly, and then more civilly—and now pleading, that this is of great importance
to faculty. I think the ultimate goal is of getting everybody’s grades in
Blackboard is worthy of us. About one-third of faculty are already doing this. If
we can get the other two-thirds to enter grades in Blackboard and get that data
over the next few semesters, fully and seamlessly moving to MapWorks for the
purpose of getting early alerts into advisors’ and APA’s hands, we can do that.
K. Ginter, for example, needs a process that does not include entering 1500
SCH’s four separate times. It should not be a quintuple-enter expectation.
iii. J. Maynard: As we have talked about, this puts us between a rock and a hard
place. In protecting the university and giving faculty flexibility, there are
challenges. For faculty we have always kept grades in some way that had to be
done; we have always done grades at least twice. Even talking about dumping
data into an Excel file may have its problems. It may be simple but not
understandable. All they know is that their flash drive doesn’t work and they
can’t lecture today. We are talking over the top of people.
iv. R. Guell: Whatever system ends up being created is fine; if you walked up to K.
Ginter and asked, “Would you like a system that saves you ten hours?” she will
likely learn it.
v. L. Spence: I think the goals are good in that they help to point out efforts in
several ways. I hope we are always mindful of student success and faculty
workload. We will work as hard as we can and keep up with communication.
vi. S. Lamb: We definitely need to keep our best people. Are you finding there is no
way to address all these issues with the resources you’ve been given?
vii. L. Spence: We have good staff that are working very hard. We have recently
been looking at how we are doing things and prioritizing.
viii. S. Lamb: Does the exposure allow you to exhibit the tremendous pressure your
domain is under?
ix. L. Spence: We have had that case to make, but not a good way to express it. We
have put that all together now. J. Maynard and D. Bradley and other VP’s, we
7
want them to come so we can show them our progress. On every project
someone has to test it for us. Sometimes constraint for manpower is not OIT, it’s
whoever’s testing it for us. We are trying to expose it in a good way to get some
help—what is reasonably expected. We are down resources in programming. We
have met with L. Brown, K. Wilkinson, and J. Ashby in order to get some good
student resources in who would get the opportunity to work on this.
x. S. Lamb: To me this has been just a perfect lecture on the role the MIS domain
faces and the management-level issues they have.
xi. L. Spence: I will talk to D. Scism. The President’s Advisory Council may want
to use some of the Lilly funding to get students to help with this transition.
6. Taskforce Recommendations
a. FAC Response to Taskforce Recommendations:
i. Definition of a Successful Department:
1. D. Hantzis: We had quite a discussion about collegiality and it being
supportive in a work environment. The wordsmithers on FAC suggested
that we write the last sentence so that it’s direct. Whatever strategy one
needs, one should utilize.
2. R. Guell: Where does this statement go? Handbook language? The
Taskforce defined what a successful department is but suppose the
Senate agrees this is a successful department, and in five years no one
would know that paragraph exists.
3. V. Sheets: You are correct. As I see it, and a couple of other members
can speak to this as well, admittedly it came later in the process. It
frames the Taskforce’s work. Here’s how we were thinking about how a
successful department was. I saw it more for the purpose of presentation
rather than something that would go through governance and into the
Handbook. I thought you (R. Guell) and S. Lamb on CAAC did a
wonderful job defining it. This would need a whole new evaluation with
that context if it is going into the Handbook. I don’t think that’s how the
Taskforce saw it.
4. R. Guell: What does Administration see as the end use of this
paragraph?
5. J. Maynard: It frames a lot of the work. This defines what they were
working toward. It doesn’t make sense to look at 351 and frame it as
kind of a preamble. Does it add something important?
6. C. Olsen: J. Maynard came in at the end, and I left at the beginning. If
this is not going anywhere. I don’t have much to say. I object to “attracts
students.” In the climate of higher ed and politics in this country I don’t
want to see this go to anyone. If it’s the first thing we say about a
specific department, I would say “engages students.”
7. D. Hantzis: It is an inappropriate verb.
8. R. Guell: What is collective will? Option one, do as J. Maynard
suggests, and find a place in 351? Option two, move on to next item.
8
9. V. Sheets: It may or may not be relevant that the last action is a
recommendation that the administration create a policy for rewarding
successful departments. If the success in that is meeting institutional
goals and targets and those sorts of things, I don’t know if that would go
in the same place together…
10. S. Lamb; I see that this would be to make a positive impact upon
departments; with that change I like it. I like “facilitates faculty
teaching, scholarship, and service.” I know we have to define effective
as well as collegial. There’s always a rub somewhere. I like the whole
paragraph and it has a place in the Handbook.
11. K. Bolinger: If this is a preamble to what we’re doing and not a
Handbook change, I think we can address the issue of attracting
students. Since at this point that’s what the intent was we don’t need
further action. This clearly wasn’t written for the Handbook.
12. S. Lamb: What’s wrong with it?
13. K. Bolinger: I’d have to think about whether the language is
operationalized enough.
ii. Recommendations to Promote Faculty Success and Faculty Duties: Preamble
1. D. Hantzis: I do want to say our discussion of most of this document
was comments, not about rules or policies. In our discussion I have to
say L. Eberman is on FAC and the head of the subcommittee on
retaining faculty and gave updated information on what is happening.
We didn’t understand. They are going forward with initiatives with what
this suggests we could comment on.
2. K. Bolinger: In your FAC discussion, under section 2, what is “NSO?”
3. D. Hantzis: That is a typo. It should be NFO—New Faculty Orientation.
The fact that it is mandatory is nowhere in the Handbook and it’s a
problem. It also needs to be clearer where the mandate is coming from.
4. R. Guell: J. Maynard, contemplate whether you want it in the
Handbook. The contract language wasn’t a no-brainer. There were
departments that did not want their faculty to spend their time this way.
5. V. Sheets: The place for the Handbook language specifically is the
preamble, 310.
6. K. Bolinger: Are we taking this document as a whole or recommending
each change?
7. R. Guell: We’re looking at how this integrates with what we are already
doing to put together future agendas.
8. D. Hantzis: This is the only thing that generated a Handbook change.
9. V. Sheets: It’s straightforward.
10. D. Hantzis: It says faculty members are expected to attend Orientation.
The reason we added “mentorship” is that there was support for
mentorship—writ large. Any such mentors need to be available, have
appropriate qualifications, and meet the needs of faculty.
11. V. Sheets: It didn’t necessarily need “program.”
9
12. D. Hantzis: We took “program” off there.
13. J. Maynard: I disagree. I’m not sure we should separate that. To me
mentorship is a component that could be there. Does it help to separate
it?
14. K. Bolinger: Who trains the mentors?
15. J. Maynard: All are issues.
16. D. Hantzis: After 3, 4, and 5 you see some ideas coming from the
Strategic Initiative for Retaining Phenomenal Faculty. What we said in
our discussion was we should not assume it is something FCTE does.
Many have issues with complexities in mentorship. Basically we
endorsed it with our vote.
17. C. Olsen: My experience in the last few years is that “newly appointed
faculty members” is problematic. Multi-year contract faculty had to
adjust teaching schedules to attend these orientation sessions. They’ve
been here many years, so may not need orientation, but I don’t want
them to miss out on faculty development money.
18. K. Bolinger: I would have to go through that if I came back here after 17
years.
19. J. Maynard: It needs to be tracked that you have experience and
customize this orientation. We don’t have a strong program for NFO. L.
Spence is running it. It will take resources. It will have to be a person
assigned to it, with resources, to do that. We have been treating this as
policy and exempted people such as yourself and made justifications.
20. V. Sheets: We could just say “Newly appointed faculty are normally
required to attend” and have the possibility of opting out.
21. D. Hantzis: I like what J. Maynard said and that is how FAC talked
about this. Remember the mentoring part of orientation. Post-tenure
people need to be oriented to a new role and a new relationship with
their work. We are concerned with the track to full professor. Maybe the
wording V. Sheets suggested could handle it even. The word “attend” is
problematic. “Participate” means there could be an array of orientation
activities, but not “attend.” Maybe for a huge chunk of faculty that will
be required, but for others we will have different tracks in place.
iii. Interdisciplinary Work
1. K. Yousif: It wasn’t a policy change, it was a recommendation for
shifting the way we work.
2. D. Hantzis: Money was already on the way to the FCTE rather than the
University College for this purpose.
3. V. Sheets: When the Taskforce was looking at it, it wasn’t the case with
this set of recommendations. We were looking at how we can improve
the faculty part of departmental success. We didn’t create actual policies
because we wanted to know if you wanted FAC to write it.
4. D. Hantzis: We weren’t sure whether we needed to support it but we
support both one and two if the University wishes to adopt a policy on
10
dual appointments. We find that is a better solution than having
departments develop them on their own.
5. S. Lamb: Some years ago there was a big movement concerning dual
appointments, and several units got together—Rose Hulman, St. Mary’s,
ISU, and Ivy Tech—got together and talked about that, and it seemed
there was an administrator in Academic Affairs put in charge of that. I
don’t know what happened, but it was largely endorsed.
6. D. Hantzis: I know that DeSilva wrote a policy for Arts & Sciences
which was reviewed Wednesday by the Council.
7. R. Guell: The disposition of the second is for simply a charge to FAC
and we will talk to D. Bradley and J. Maynard as to whether you should
spend time on that.
8. J. Maynard: Why University College as the home for that?
9. K. Yousif: It was just an initial idea in the first or second meeting.
10. V. Sheets: We assumed it was going to be in Gen Ed.
11. K. Yousif: A way to use the upper division integrative electives.
12. J. Maynard: I don’t disagree.
13. V. Sheets: We didn’t have a strong feeling about it.
14. D. Hantzis: When L. Eberman told us the FCTE was getting money to
do this, there was the feeling we should have known.
15. J. Maynard: I learn all the time that money has been given to places.
16. R. Guell: On the third charge to FAC and each governing body…
17. D. Hantzis: J. Fine articulated a response to that, and FAC did suggest
with guidance by S. Powers that departments should have to prove there
are fully developed and appropriate guidelines. PTOC is already charged
with doing that.
iv. Faculty Appreciation Recognition
1. D. Hantzis: This was very…well, we had a really robust conversation
about this. I can tell you it raised many concerns. No one on FAC
immediately accepted the creation of a junior faculty award. It was
voiced by some as “Isn’t tenure the reward for being an outstanding pretenure faculty member?” There were some concerned about giving an
award to someone without tenure. What if someone gets an award but
doesn’t get tenure? So they stated that pre-tenure faculty were already
being recognized. They are in such competition hell that creating the
award adds pressure. There is nothing we are currently doing to support
Lecturers. I think we could find something of that nature. They hardly
even receive timely notification of rehire.
2. V. Sheets: These recommendations came from our review of the
COACHE data. We had a Taskforce meeting this morning, and I was
disappointed that FAC had this response. Many faculty don’t see their
work as adequately recognized. We see that in poor retention of good
faculty. I hope the Executive Committee will insist on outstanding pretenure faculty awards.
11
3. D. Hantzis: People think we should be providing encouragement to
faculty beyond annual review and the letter—in some way that avoids
pitfalls.
4. K. Bolinger: I agree with V. Sheets in principle. The idea of a university
wide award is going to be subjective. It’s difficult to compare between
departments. Some are open to all faculty within colleges to allow them
recognition. I like the idea but I think implementation is difficult for a
university-wide award.
5. J. Maynard: It’s never easy, but what if every college would have an
outstanding Instructor, and from them, someone was selected? There are
ways to restructure these. Each college needs a chance to build a quality
system of recognition. It doesn’t align itself to a university-wide system
but would take a lot more work. We have a large number of people who
fit these categories.
6. K. Bolinger: Ironically one year the education award for research was
won by an Instructor.
7. K. Yousif: The COACHE data basically screamed that people feel under
recognized and undervalued.
8. D. Hantzis: Is that true at the Associate level?
9. K. Yousif: It’s true at every level.
10. R. Guell: The administration and the officers will consider this.
v. Section 350 Overhaul
1. R. Guell: We will do no work on this other than hear what this massive
rewrite has done.
2. V. Sheets: This is from the Taskforce’s meeting today. The way this
chart works is to remind you of the revisions made to the section on
department chairs. FAC was asked to review because we had two subtaskforces looking at it and their roles were adding to the roles and
responsibilities section. FAC did a thorough job of it. The Taskforce met
for a final meeting today and responded to the final deans’ task forces
recommendations. FAC made some changes and queries of us, and we
responded to that as well. The back page is the page of instructions. The
first column is the current language, then what the Taskforce proposed,
then FAC’s proposal, then the Taskforce’s re-review, then any notes.
Where the large font is a change was proposed. If small font returns in
the next step, it was accepted and there were no further changes. We
wanted you to see where the changes came from. Starting with the first
section on “Appointment”—the Taskforce nor FAC proposed any
changes but the President wanted clarification so we provided that.
3. K. Bolinger: I read the earlier version today, and I had a question about
350.1: it seems to indicate in the prior iteration that it would take
something extraordinary to overturn the will of the faculty. If it’s going
forward from the faculty, to the Dean, to the Provost, to the President…
12
4. C. Olsen: It de-emphasized the regular faculty vote. Getting three equal
recommendations was part of the original document.
5. K. Bolinger: There should be separate recommendations.
6. C. MacDonald: The actual process is elsewhere in the Handbook.
7. K. Bolinger: I would say I’m not sure where I stand on that point but it
does de-emphasize the faculty vote.
8. D. Hantzis: The way I read it the comma after the Dean in the original
speaks to the role of regular faculty. It’s really only the
recommendations of the Dean and the Provost that go to the President.
9. J. Maynard: I would go through and say we have three finalists for chair,
and here’s what the faculty say, and here’s what the dean says. It takes
the wisdom of Job to try to figure it out from everyone’s statements.
There were only a couple of cases where an inconsistent
recommendation came forward.
10. C. Olsen: I think this was clearer than what D. Bradley proposed.
11. J. Maynard: Where else is the process laid out in the Handbook?
12. V. Sheets: I have no problem with the original. It’s more honest. If you
read that you have to go with what faculty said you’re creating an
expectation.
13. R. Guell: We need to agree to the overarching new superstructure of this
section of the Handbook before we get line-by-line changes to what has
been proposed. That discussion and vote will be when we meet formally
next time. I think what I’m going to try to do is break it up in to
manageable motions so that instead of voting on each individual
element. For example, we will take up 350.1 and handle several sections
at a time. Our job this semester is this: we should get it done in an
orderly fashion with hope that by the end of November meeting it will
be done. I don’t want to put J. Maynard in a position to run around
signing a number of changes between the Senate changes in December
and the Board of Trustees agenda.
14. K. Bolinger: That would be wise to do. We should add a final column of
Executive Committee recommendations.
15. V. Sheets: For Senate I would have the original and Executive
Committee proposals. It would be fine to have the long version
available, but I print out everything I receive.
16. R. Guell: We should advise that they not print it, but look at it online.
17. V. Sheets: Given what you’ve said, why don’t I give an overview and
highlight today’s changes? One concern in particular of the Taskforce
was the lack of authority of chairs to correct “bad actors” in their
department. Some of the frustration with the chair role was expressed in
the summer retreat. How can we clean up the role of a chair and give
more authority without giving total authority? We don’t’ want chairs to
be supervisors, but want them to nurture faculty, and make sure the
trains run on time. Most of the changes from today’s meeting are trivial.
13
18. K. Bolinger: In 350.1.1 we are now implementing 3-year term limits?
19. R. Guell: Currently chairs have 3-year reviews but it’s not a formal term
of service as I understand it.
20. V. Sheets: It was my understanding from my three-year review that I
could choose to serve another three years.
21. R. Guell: You would be reviewed in three more years.
22. J. Maynard: Deans, for example, require a three-year appointment. At
the end of it I renew it or take other actions. Some colleges
conceptualize chairs as having three-year terms, but the letter of
appointment doesn’t indicate that.
23. V. Sheets: I will have to look at my letter of appointment, but I thought
mine was close to that.
24. R. Guell: What you’re saying is, look for the big font, and that’s what’s
new?
25. V. Sheets: Yes, and what you’ll see is the deans’ taskforces added roles
and responsibilities of a chair, including leadership and mentoring. They
felt the chairs’ role in leadership at the institutional level wasn’t clear. It
didn’t fit in the leadership section we had.
26. R. Guell: I see what it is you’ve done and what was left undone.
27. V. Sheets: (Regarding 350.3.3) None of that stuff we looked at changed.
We believe the language was changed by the Senate last year but the
Handbook online doesn’t have the correct language.
28. R. Guell: The Handbook online does not reflect the language that the
Senate passed because the President refused to take it to the Board of
Trustees. Instead he wanted to have this Taskforce. The Taskforce was
borne of a frustration with the notion that we were playing small ball
with the question of selection and removal of chairpersons…the
compromise that happened there—five, no more than seven regular—
and then the recommendation on the floor, the President refused to take
it to the Board. The last will of the Senate was that regular faculty have
a say.
29. V. Sheets: The Taskforce has no opinion on that. It was not clear that
was part of what we were to look at—at all. When I initially created this
I just copied everything in the Handbook so that when we sent it
forward it would be complete, including what we didn’t change.
30. C. MacDonald: I can’t contradict you, because it was so little on the
radar of the Taskforce.
31. R. Guell: I really don’t want to re-litigate that.
32. V. Sheets: Our recommendation of changes won’t. I’d rather not lose the
rest of their good work fighting over something the Taskforce didn’t
take up.
33. E. Hampton: What was the concern?
14
34. R. Guell: Our work was focused on the removal of the section of the
Handbook that D. Bradley hated, and migrated into the selection
portion. I don’t want to re-litigate this on the floor.
35. D. Hantzis: I am less concerned about nominating committees than that
350.3.4 should be amended to include “obtain evaluations from each
full-time faculty member every faculty member should be able to put in
their evaluations.”
36. V. Sheets: It should be “shall solicit evaluations.”
37. D. Hantzis: I like that it’s explicit. FAC did nothing with this either. We
should have caught that.
38. R. Guell: The other part of the way to manage this to get it moving was
to do something a little unconventional before the November meeting. It
would be to create a consent agenda in Qualtrics and have each section
as a separate voting item, and any checkmark will cause us to have a
debate on that subsection. The unchecked ones would immediately go to
the agenda and pass in one fell swoop.
39. E. Hampton: 350.2.5 is the only new aspect I have a reaction to. The
earlier language was giving the chair responsibility for mobilizing, but
now it says the chair is “accountable.” As faculty we are worried about
workloads, but do we want to make chairs accountable for
implementation?
40. K. Bolinger: To implement the plan, not to ensure success.
41. V. Sheets: The deans wanted the chairs to be accountable for
development, implementation, and evaluation. It came from the deans.
They felt that accountability was more appropriate because it’s not the
chairs’ responsibility to do this on their own but rather the chair is who
the dean goes to—who has to report on it—but faculty have to carry out
these plans.
42. R. Guell: This will satisfy the Board’s specific request.
43. J. Maynard: I wish there were an easier way to present this than
wordsmithing it line by line. We count words and get lost in what we are
saying. We want to present the big picture.
44. R. Guell: V. Sheets is presenting the big picture of the work of the
Taskforce on Thursday. We aren’t voting on it; it’s informational. My
expectation is that this will be every bit as frustrating as the biennial
review process was and we will simply have to resort to auxiliary
meetings.
45. K. Bolinger: This is going on December’s agenda?
46. R. Guell: The information is being presented Thursday. Exec is working
line by line for the November 13th meeting. We will try between the last
thing taken up and the November 13th meeting to do the Qualtrics
survey. As many meetings as we need to wordsmith this, we will
wordsmith.
15
47. J. Maynard: They should be able to put recommendations for changes in
Qualtrics as well.
48. C. MacDonald: It would be helpful to have written amendments ahead
of time, as we did with the biennial review.
49. K. Bolinger: If it goes on the December agenda it may go more quickly.
50. D. Hantzis: As a Senator, I think it would be helpful to have a cover
letter to explain what has changed section by section. FAC is completely
satisfied that faculty have a voice in this process. If they just have a
knee-jerk reaction to the removal of “at their pleasure,” I would like to
speak to that. An easy guide is needed.
51. R. Guell: V. Sheets, I think the biennial review process worked a whole
lot better because in part I remembered what my job was and let C.
MacDonald do her job on presentation. I will simply run the meeting
and point to people to allow them to comment..
7. Adjournment 5:22pm
16