1
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
October 28, 2014
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C.
Olsen, V. Sheets, K. Yousif
Ex-Officio Present: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
Guest: L. Eberman
1. Administrative Reports:
a. D. Bradley: No Report.
b. J. Maynard: No Report.
2. Chair Report:
a. R. Guell: No Report.
3. Approval of the Minutes of October 14, 2014: A. Anderson, V. Sheets. Vote: 8-0-0
4. Handbook Change Suggestions from Taskforce
a. Motion #1 Change to Structure of 350 K. Yousif, K. Bolinger. Vote: 9-0-0
i. R. Guell: Since I sent this to you I would like you to consider adding
certain items to the consent agenda: 350.1 and 350.1.1. Someone has also
asked to move to Motion #3 number seven, 350.2.7.3.3, “Selection,” that
we’ll move to Motion #12.
1. K. Bolinger: Isn’t this something we would vote upon?
2. R. Guell: Moving it off this list and down to the regular motion is
the Chair’s call. Moving things up to the consent agenda will
require a vote, but moving something to the discussion is the
Chair’s call. Does anyone else with to move anything to
discussion?
ii. R. Guell: Then we will go back to Motion one, to change the structure. I
peeled out all the language in the whole thing and gave an outline of the
two. Does anyone wish to speak to the change in structure only?
2
b. Motion #2 (Approve all) No Change to Existing Text. E. Hampton, A. Anderson.
Vote: 9-0-0.
i. R. Guell: Are there any elements you wish to move out and discuss?
1. V. Sheets: Apparently there is something left out in the transfer of
text in 350.2.7.3.2. You’re missing, in the second sentence in
“Small Departments,” “…an elaborate committee structure might
be artificial.”
2. R. Guell: Is this simply a typo?
3. V. Sheets: Yes.
c. Items to Consider Adding to Consent Agenda.
i. R. Guell: Does anyone wish to move any of these into discussion? So on
Consent Agenda are all those items in Motion #2 on the agenda except for
350.1, 350.1.1, 350.3, and 350.5.1.
d. Individual Motions
i. Motion #3 350.1, 350.1.1, 350.3. A. Anderson, C. MacDonald. Vote: 8-10
1. K. Bolinger: When we discussed this last time we were concerned
about the weight of the faculty vote. We have taken language out,
and it now looks like a three-way vote—and then the President
decides. Was that our intent?
2. D. Bradley: It means there are three recommendations.
3. K. Yousif: Just like recommendations for promotion.
4. D. Bradley: I didn’t know what the original language meant. Did
that give faculty a veto? I could have been read that way.
5. K. Bolinger: The nomination rises from the faculty vote.
6. D. Bradley: What happens if the Dean and the faculty have a
difference of opinion and can’t make a recommendation?
7. K. Bolinger: It’s advisory in nature.
8. V. Sheets: We saw the language as more clarifying and more
honest this way.
9. K. Bolinger: When you said D. Bradley asked for clarification. I
understand your point. I’m just afraid we would have limited
faculty voice.
10. S. Lamb: The proposal is based on opinion of regular faculty of the
department.
11. V. Sheets: We did that because of D. Bradley’s requirements for
clarification.
12. R. Guell: L. Eberman, can you speak to that?
3
13. L. Eberman: We’re also reviewing section 305, which outlines
recommendations for hiring faculty and the language of both of
these are consistent.
14. K. Bolinger: If we add “recommendation” in that last sentence…
15. A. Anderson: Take “recommendation” out above it?
16. V. Sheets: Maybe “recommendation” should be plural.
17. K. Bolinger: Yes, because it seemed like a three-way vote in a
room.
18. S. Lamb: You mean it cannot move forward without a positive
recommendation from the faculty?
19. E. Hampton: It doesn’t mean it cannot. In the best of situations…
20. D. Bradley: It will take a very special case to give tenure to
someone who doesn’t have faculty recommendation. Same for
chair. If I get a split recommendation on chair there will be some
discussion and some level of anxiety associated with making that
decision.
21. R. Guell: We are making “recommendation” plural? Any other
elements anyone wishes to deal with on these?
22. S. Lamb: When you say “may be required on first appointment”
chairs may be required to participate in a development program?
23. V. Sheets: First, we don’t have such a thing yet, and second, we
might not have it every year. There may be a difference between a
chair who has been chair before and someone coming from outside
the campus.
24. D. Bradley: I suggest this may have been written a little too tightly.
If a Dean and/or Provost say to a chair “You need to get to a chair
development program” I would suggest that chair think about it as
a requirement. It may be written too tightly. Chairs need
development if their Dean or the Provost suggests it.
25. S. Lamb: “Chairs may be required to participate in development
sessions?”
26. D. Bradley: Supported by Academic Affairs.
27. A. Anderson: Not just any development program.
28. D. Bradley: If the Provost or the Dean wants to do that they foot
the bill.
29. V. Sheets: The second sentence outlines that.
30. E. Hampton: The language “expected to advantage themselves”
strikes me as odd.
4
31. R. Guell: I think the point was that where NFO may be a set of
physical meetings, and continuing chair development opportunities
may by asynchronous.
32. V. Sheets: And may depend on the particular chair.
33. A. Anderson: How about “participation in developmental
activities?”
ii. Motion #4: 350.2.1 Leadership and 350.2.1.1 Method of Leadership. K.
Bolinger, A. Anderson. 8-1-0
1. R. Guell: Anyone wish to comment? The proposal is to add to the
Method of Leadership.
2. D. Bradley: I would like to add “review and evaluation.”
3. R. Guell: Where would you put that?
4. K. Bolinger: “Suggestions and recommendations” covers it,
doesn’t it?
5. R. Guell: The chair’s part in the review process is part of the duties
and the duties continue to go on in “Personnel Matters.”
6. D. Bradley: Part of leadership is holding people responsible. I
don’t know how you say it, but if you have people not carrying
weight, the leader is obligated to make the person aware.
7. L. Eberman: Isn’t the Chair’s evaluation a recommendation to the
Dean?
8. R. Guell: Yes it is, subsumed within recommendation. D. Bradley
is making a different point, which is has to do with bullying.
9. S. Lamb: What’s wrong with the language?
10. R. Guell: It’s repetitive.
11. K. Bolinger: It’s more succinct than recommendation. Not all
recommendations are evaluations.
12. C. MacDonald: They’re not meant to be.
13. R. Guell: That’s why you use the larger subset.
14. C. Olsen: It applies to more than biennial review.
15. R. Guell: Yes, but again, part of the enumeration list of duties. It’s
covered in this.
16. C. Olsen: In leadership the main thing missing is “by example.”
The chair should practice scholarship.
17. A. Anderson: Leading the department by example.
18. E. Hampton: That makes it sound strange. By example, through
persuasion.
19. R. Guell: Add an “and?” Do we have unanimous consent?
iii. Motion #5: 350.2.3 Resource Management and Development. A.
Anderson, K. Yousif.
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
R. Guell: I would like to add a sentence to this.
D. Bradley; Can I ask why that is separate instead of part of duties?
R. Guell: It’s within Duties and Responsibilities.
V. Sheets: Originally it was included under Administration of
Department Office. The Taskforce thought it still was. The Dean’s
requested something be mentioned about this and that’s why we
pulled it out.
5. R. Guell: I would ask that we reference what is to come—
350.2.7.3—what consultation is and the expectations of
consultation. So I would add this sentence: “In the execution of
this responsibility, the chair will consult with the faculty, per
section 350.2.7.3.”
6. J. Maynard: It’s redundant. We could do that for every subsection.
It just adds words.
7. R. Guell: I understand that argument, and looked for other places
where the consultation isn’t explicit. Last year there was a dispute
in a department regarding resource allocation, and the accusation
was transactions weren’t transparent. There was in a department
upwards of five years ago the allocation of lab fees that was not at
all transparent, that was only uncovered problematically because
the chair did not view his role as being transparent. I feel we have
to say this. Transparency and consultation are required.
8. K. Bolinger: In 352.3 just say, “Advocating for open and effective
management of department resources.”
9. K. Yousif: The problem with including numbering is that the
numbers change and reordering changes.
10. S. Lamb: I’d like to raise an issue. Those responsibilities I do take
upon myself. When I’m ineffective or when I do poorly I am
reminded to alter my ways, but if I have to on every decision call
upon my poor faculty to participate in one more committee
meeting, I think they’ll go berserk.
11. R. Guell: That’s not what “consultation” says.
12. C. MacDonald: What was the phrasing?
13. K. Bolinger: “Advocating for open and effective management of
departmental resources” instead of “effectively managing
departmental resources.”
14. R. Guell: A. Anderson, you also shared this concern.
15. A. Anderson: It just has to do with trusting the chair. There was
one instance where a chair spread fees where they shouldn’t have
gone and the Controller put a stop to it.
6
16. S. Lamb: A. Anderson, do you feel there is sufficient language in
there?
17. A. Anderson: I hope so. If we get too specific it would cause
trouble.
18. D. Bradley: There is a policy that says fees are supposed to be for
departments collectively.
19. R. Guell: There is no “transparency” in this document.
20. A. Anderson: Getting too specific could be problematic.
21. D. Bradley: I agree with including the transparent language
because they can see what’s going on.
22. V. Sheets: Transparency implies that if you ask you shall be told.
As a young faculty member, one of the things that caused me to
lose respect for my colleagues was because 14 faculty members
argued about $200. It was a waste of time.
23. K. Bolinger: I don’t think I need to call a committee vote for things
that don’t need it.
24. D. Bradley: “Consulting” shouldn’t be in there.
25. R. Guell: There is a whole section on consultation. Strike it in
here?
26. E. Hampton: Is it better to remove “advocating?”
27. R. Guell: We have a problem with the language that E. Hampton
points out. The function of advocating is being lost and doesn’t fit
with the notion of transparency in one clean sentence. I am going
to ask that 350.2.3 be tabled for better language next week. S.
Lamb, C. MacDonald. Vote: 9-0-0
28. R. Guell: K. Bolinger, you are charged with rewriting this to
include both the task of advocating and the request for
transparency.
iv. Motion #6: 350.2.4 Curricular Programming and Course Scheduling. A.
Anderson, C. Olsen. Vote: 9-0-0
1. D. Bradley: Acting on advice doesn’t mean accepting advice,
right? Basically they have to receive the advice or act after the
advice. Unless you only have one faculty member in your
department, it will almost always conflict.
2. J. Maynard: Just say “After receiving input from faculty.”
3. S. Lamb: I can see faculty members coming to me and saying “this
says ‘acting on.’”
4. R. Guell: Technically, rejecting is acting on the advice.
5. E. Hampton: Ignoring is an act as well.
6. S. Lamb: What is wrong with saying “after receiving the input of?”
7
7. R. Guell: Is that what you wish it to say?
8. J. Maynard: “With input from his or her faculty.”
9. V. Sheets: I don’t know which versions are going forward to
Senate, but there’s a sentence missing here on one version.
10. R. Guell: Noted.
v. Motion #8: 350.2.5 Promoting Student Success A. Anderson, C.
MacDonald. Vote: 9-0-0
1. D. Bradley: I think “leading the development of students” should
be there.
2. C. Olsen: The only reason this is not disastrous is that chairs are
only responsible for the plans, not for the results. The amount of
input chairs have on student success is so small.
3. R. Guell: All this language is about leadership. It is not about the
fact that if it fails it’s your fault. The reality in 90 percent of
departments is the Dean has nowhere else to go.
4. D. Bradley: The language you have with that one change is better.
5. K. Bolinger: The faculty put together the pieces.
6. C. Olsen: The piece beyond “factors outside of classroom and
faculty control” is huge.
7. L. Eberman: From my recollection the word “accountable” came
from a chair on the Taskforce. They wanted the word
“accountable.” That’s why it was even changed.
8. R. Guell: Anyone suggest a change?
9. D. Bradley: “Accountable for leading the development…”
10. V. Sheets: “Responsible” is parallel to the language.
11. D. Bradley: I’m okay with using “responsible” in place of
“accountable.”
vi. Motion #8: 350.2.7.3.1 Limitations on Consultative Requirement. Vote: 90-0
1. V. Sheets: The Taskforce didn’t recommend changes but FAC
caught the word “program” which was confusing. We accepted
FAC’s recommendation.
2. R. Guell: Any requests to speak about this?
3. D. Bradley: It says in the last sentence that the chair should have a
plan for the department. We really want the department to have a
plan because the chair is then responsible for leading the
implementation.
4. V. Sheets: So the chair should “enlist?”
5. C. Olsen: What about the previous sentence?
8
6. L. Eberman: I think that’s what was implied. It was a strategic
plan.
7. D. Bradley: Not the chair’s plan, the department’s plan.
8. V. Sheets: It implies the chair is leading, not creating.
9. S. Lamb: “Facilitating the development.”
10. V. Sheets: No, because it is leading the way in development.
11. R. Guell: Strike “in making tactical decisions” in the last sentence?
12. C. Olsen: It’s really “strategy,” not “tactics.”
13. R. Guell: The paragraph then reads, “This duty of consultation is
not to be construed as implying that the chairperson is only an
executant without power of initiative. Perhaps the most important
duty of a chairperson is to lead the way in setting policies, and as
much as possible, in developing a strategic plan for the
department.” Any other comments?
14. E. Hampton: I like the sentiment in the last sentence, though.
“Enlisting the active and effective participation of department
members.”
15. V. Sheets: Add that piece back in?
16. S. Lamb: Isn’t that putting the onus completely on the chair?
17. R. Guell: No.
vii. Motion #9: 350.2.9 Personnel Matters. A. Anderson, E. Hampton. Vote: 90-0
1. R. Guell: We are looking here at the opening paragraph, not
anything beyond it.
2. L. Eberman: I would recommend changing nonrenewals to nonreappointments to maintain consistency.
3. D. Bradley: How accurate is this, in terms of chairs leading the
discussion?
4. K. Yousif: The chair is supposed to have independent evaluations.
5. C. Olsen: I’m not allowed to sit in on personnel committee
meetings.
6. R. Guell: But you are leading them through it.
7. C. Olsen: I set deadlines, but…
8. S. Lamb: But leading through. It is the personnel committee that
begins the process and actually the chair never sits in on those but
has access to the personnel committee’s opinion before he or she
makes comments.
9. K. Bolinger: What about “facilitates” instead of “leads?” I set up
times for meetings, and I set up deadlines for meetings.
9
10. V. Sheets: It’s more than just facilitating. It really is leading.
Talking about expectations. When disagreements arise, helping the
committee come together.
11. R. Guell: On page 15 of the five-column we are debating original
language that is seemingly well-understood.
12. E. Hampton: I think “leading” is most accurate.
13. R. Guell: We will change “non-renewals” to “non-reappointments”
because that is the language of 305.
14. S. Lamb: I repeat that it is the case within the entire College of
Business that in terms of the initial decisions, the personnel
committee makes the call. It is the case we have input but never at
the committee meeting. There are people who speak to the chair
about their opinion but of course, again, not at the committee
meeting.
15. K. Bolinger: Do you not like “lead” either? I worry about it
implying collusion and coercion.
16. S. Lamb: I am empathetic with E. Hampton’s thought process.
However, the chair is in the lead position on these matters but it is
also a very shared decision-making process with the personnel
committee. I really think “lead” is perhaps over-emphasized.
17. K. Bolinger: Are we not voting today to promote this as an
individual motion? If it goes to Senate we can argue this.
18. V. Sheets: I would rather not do any wordsmithing at Senate.
19. E. Hampton: I don’t think this speaks to any sort of collusion. As a
chair, I charge the personnel committee; inform new members of
their roles. This is leading them, but I don’t lead them in their
decision-making process.
20. K. Bolinger: Leading in critical decisions. I think it still indicates
what you said. It sounds a little like persuasion to me.
21. D. Bradley: I appreciate R. Guell’s earlier comment. The language
has been around and understandably carries quite a bit of weight.
22. C. Olsen: Just add the “work through the process.”
23. K. Yousif: That is actually what the chair does.
24. R. Guell: “The responsibility of the department chair to lead his
department through the process of making critical decisions
involving faculty appointments.”
viii. Motion #10: 350.2.9.1 Communication of Faculty Duties and
Responsibilities; 350.2.9.1.1 Faculty Development. S. Lamb, C.
MacDonald.
10
1. D. Bradley: My first thought is how many times. In the sense
that…
2. S. Lamb: Can we just put a period after “department?”
3. R. Guell: We will get to deficient performance. There is a whole
section for that.
4. C. MacDonald: It’s not clear to whom they are explaining them.
5. E. Hampton: There was confusion upon reading it. “the faculty
duties and responsibility to each member.” That I can get behind.
You’re explaining their duties.
6. D. Bradley: I think that is confusing in a way. One is talking about
everyone.
7. E. Hampton: “To each member of the department faculty.”
8. D. Bradley: This is general duties as opposed to individual duties.
9. E. Hampton: Talking to one faculty member as opposed to I don’t
know how many.
10. D. Bradley: It should be in the language somewhere.
11. V. Sheets: I like “their” because that doesn’t imply every faculty
member has the same duties. I think it is at least implied.
12. R. Guell: Those who are arguing for this individual instruction of
responsibility I haven’t had that in 25 years.
13. A. Anderson: You need clarification because it could read
differently if you have an obstreperous faculty member.
14. R. Guell: I like the original language.
15. E. Hampton: Maybe I’m nitpicking but now it sounds like I have to
explain everyone’s duties to everyone.
16. C. MacDonald: I think it’s general duties.
17. R. Guell: “The department chair shall explain the duties and
responsibilities to each faculty member.”
18. A. Anderson: If you said the chair should “explain to each
department faculty member the individual responsibilities and
duties.”
19. V. Sheets: You could use “their” and the reference wouldn’t
necessarily be department chair.
20. A. Anderson: “The department chair shall explain to each member
of the department faculty their duties and responsibilities.”
21. R. Guell: We will leave this for next week. A. Anderson shall
rewrite it for us. Motion to table. R. Guell, A. Anderson. Vote: 9-00
ix. Motion #11 350.2.9.1.3 Deficient Performance; 350.2.9.1.3.1 Time for
Response; 350.2.9.1.3.2 Right of Consultation; 350.2.9.1.3.3 Written
11
Admonishment; 350.2.9.1.3.4 Continued Deficient Performance;
350.2.9.1.3.5 Request of Denial of Across-the-Board Pay Raises;
350.2.9.1.3.6 Right of Rebuttal; 350.2.9.1.3.7 Dean’s Prerogative;
350.2.9.1.3.8 Personnel Files. C. Olsen, C. MacDonald.
1. R. Guell: My own concern on this relative to the letter of
admonishment notion dates back to my first year as an Exec
member because department chairs had no authority, and I wanted
to create a disciplinary committee, and S. Lamb, in his great
wisdom, directed me to FAC. This whole letter of admonishment
came out of that process. The faculty only wanted a letter of
admonishment for specific Handbook violations. The old
preamble, in terms of the chairs’ duties, references those specific
sections of the Handbook. This has removed any ability for a
department chair to refer a Handbook violation by a faculty
member by pointing to a specific section. Now a person can
potentially be admonished for “not doing it well enough.” That is
very different than the sentiment when the faculty agreed to the
letter of admonishment.
2. D. Bradley: This doesn’t call for a letter.
3. V. Sheets: It’s a possibility. I didn’t like starting off with that. The
way it read it seemed very legalistic. That’s not the way a
department should run. They should talk first, and that’s why we
moved it down in the process. I believe the removal of reference to
numbered sections of the Handbook was done by FAC. The
argument as I recall was the problem of always-changing numbers
in the Handbook.
4. L. Eberman: That is a consistent conversation we have had. When
we refer to other sections we have to go back and fix it. We have
rewritten two major sections so far this year.
5. R. Guell: In terms of principle, suppose I am doing everything I’m
supposed to do with regard to 310, but I am just not very good
anymore. Is that justification for a letter of admonishment?
6. D. Bradley: It probably is, justification for some sort of
improvement plan. In the case of someone dogging it, there should
be a way to effectively trigger a midterm biennial review. Rather
than a letter of admonishment, do a review and it could result in
formally having to develop an improvement plan.
7. L. Eberman: I think that is implied in multiple sections.
8. K. Yousif: There is an escalation.
12
9. V. Sheets: It doesn’t have to be something ongoing. Just one really
bad mistake, but not a trigger for a review.
10. D. Bradley: When things have gone unchecked for a long period of
time, there are things they let slide.
11. S. Lamb: This, to me, is rather well laid out. I imagine 95 percent
of the time step one resolves the issue. I had this conversation this
morning, but nevertheless if the conversation the chair has with the
faculty member is not effective enough—there is not alteration of
behavior—there are nice follow-up steps recommended here. I
doubt very much one out of forty will get down to these final steps.
12. E. Hampton: With regard to V. Sheets’ question, I wonder, if they
do something really badly, then they have no ability to rectify
besides promising not to do it again.
13. R. Guell: Is that a rectification?
14. V. Sheets: Yes. Sometimes a promise has to do it.
15. K. Bolinger: I agree with S. Lamb because it does give adequate
time for a faculty member to say, “Yes, I need to change things.”
The problem I have comes from the request for denial of acrossthe-board pay raises. It seems the chair makes the decision and
sends it off to the personnel committee. If we are talking about pay
they should be involved in the decision rather than informed.
16. E. Hampton: They can support the chair’s recommendation or have
a chance for rebuttal.
17. R. Guell: 350.2.9.1.3.4 happens before that.
18. K. Bolinger: That was when you determine that it’s an egregious
performance but when it gets down to how bad it was, that’s where
I would rather have a larger voice. When you deny pay, that’s in
perpetuity.
19. E. Hampton: The personnel committee recommendation should
carry some weight.
20. K. Bolinger: Not involving the process of pay denial.
21. C. Olsen: It’s not explicit. 350.2.9.1.3.4 is about performance.
350.2.9.1.3.5 starts discussion about denial of raise. I agree it flows
but it’s not explicit.
22. K. Bolinger: It appears the chair is making the decision.
23. R. Guell: No, because the right of rebuttal is 350.2.9.1.3.6, and in
350.2.9.1.3.6 the personnel committee can write a letter in support
and that goes to the Dean.
24. E. Hampton: I have a question on this section requesting denial of
across-the-board pay raises—wouldn’t we want this to happen
13
after written note of admonishment? Should the “or” be an “and?”
Could someone simply be admonished and have their raise denied?
25. C. MacDonald: The intent was “or.”
26. R. Guell: Could someone speak to that?
27. V. Sheets: We don’t know the level of the severity of the
performance that requires it.
28. E. Hampton: So if someone makes a huge mistake and they agree,
they could still get denied a raise.
29. V. Sheets: I can’t think of particular examples. I don’t want to
preclude.
30. K. Yousif: It was impossible for us to limit it with the idea that it
would be continual, but there is always an exception.
31. L. Eberman: In the event it’s an “or” and it may not be such an
egregious issue, the Dean could say it’s too soon, and it would not
lead to a denial of a raise.
32. J. Maynard: “Or” gives the flexibility to do that. You have the
protections of the personnel committee and the wisdom of the
Dean. There are a lot of protections in here. Being too linear limits
the flexibility of it.
33. V. Sheets: We laid this out in what seemed like a logical order, but
not that it had to be proscribed.
34. C. Olsen: It gives chairs a lot of latitude and flexibility. The letter
is good; I’m trying to envision between a letter of admonishment
and something heinous—it’s cumulative.
35. D. Bradley: This would be a wake-up situation. It would be
someone who is a chronic problem and it’s not to the level of
termination, it’s just something they’re not paying attention to.
36. K. Bolinger: Can you give an example of something that would
require a remediation plan? What condition would go from
admonishment but not lead to termination?
37. D. Bradley: “Or” is better unless you want to add a few sentences.
38. R. Guell: Let me ask a practical question. I talked with M. Green
today about additions to base that got wiped out by equity
adjustments…will we remember that the equity adjustments
shouldn’t be a full adjustment because 15 years ago someone was
denied an increase? The big spreadsheet has gotten so complicated
he is reluctant to implement it—and it’s his.
39. D. Bradley: Maybe 15 years is a long enough penance.
14
40. S. Lamb: I don’t know if it pertains to this discussion or not, but
every merit increase or denial was wiped out by the compensation
formula.
41. D. Bradley: They still paid a penalty, S. Lamb.
42. R. Guell: Right now on Motion #11 it is entirely intact but there
are no amendments.
43. D. Bradley: It’s not dealing with “or.” My question was to be sure
this does not preclude a chair from taking action that doesn’t
involve salary or termination. For example, if removal from a
course is something that needs to be done quickly in the chair’s
mind to avoid damage then the chair is correct to avoid damage to
students.
44. R. Guell: Like if the chair is correct—present circumstances are
rolling around in my head, but unless we build an entirely new
section, to me it precludes it because in the present circumstances,
in this imaginary scenario, the chair thinks they need to be
removed. If there is no due process and they are just yanked out,
with no unproven allegations, I can’t support it.
45. D. Bradley: Due process can come after the fact. There is no job
action, no pay action, but there are circumstances that appear to
require immediate action.
46. D. Bradley: People are still innocent until proven guilty but we still
arrest them. We need to allow the Chair/Dean/Provost to take
immediate action.
47. S. Lamb: Don’t we have that ability to remove them from the
classroom now?
48. J. Maynard: I think we do but there are folks who disagree.
49. K. Yousif: Should we draft an extraordinary circumstances
section?
50. J. Maynard: One could always argue that if they are being
reassigned to develop a plan, as long as someone is being paid, no
harm has occurred to them yet. The due process in trying to
dismiss has another list of specifics.
51. R. Guell: I think I understand that. If a thing is happening in a
classroom that is doing damage to the students it is possible to do it
in a way where the due process is after. I think personally that
there is damage to the faculty member who is yanked out—to their
reputation, at minimum—and that due process, if we use that tool,
it needs to be explicit in the Handbook, not as implied in this
section.
15
52. D. Bradley: It’s a matter of balancing embarrassment of the faculty
member with the welfare of the student. It is always difficult. If
students have paid $800 to take a course and their time is being
used inappropriately or the material isn’t being delivered, the chair
has to have the ability to make a change.
53. A. Anderson: But first say something to the faculty member, not
yank them out.
54. D. Bradley: In a 5-week class, a very short term, how do you not
take direct action?
55. S. Lamb: You do have to have the language in the Handbook—in
extraordinary circumstances. It can’t be just when the instruction is
less than ideal.
56. D. Bradley: It has to be unusual circumstances. It really comes
down to being careful. This is that which we’re always accused of,
is protecting ourselves to the detriment of our students.
57. S. Lamb: Can there not be an addition to this to deal with
exceptional circumstances?
58. V. Sheets: I’m not sure that is precluded by this. We could add it
under Time for Response.
59. R. Guell: There is no emergency in the room that does not involve
students’ physical harm that does not allow for consultation with
faculty.
60. D. Bradley: Sometimes it depends on how functional everyone is.
61. K. Bolinger: If I find every student in a class said, “What a waste
of time. We didn’t do anything.” I’m not going to schedule that
faculty member for that class anymore. If I learn that in the middle
of the semester and I am using that authority I don’t see how it
needs to be enumerated here. I am just using my authority to
schedule classes.
62. V. Sheets: Motion to table with intent to write a section on
extraordinary circumstances?
63. R. Guell: We will table Motion #11 and I will consult with V.
Sheets and the two other officers and J. Maynard on creation of
“Extraordinary Circumstances.” Motion to table. V. Sheets, R.
Guell. Vote: 9-0-0
x. Motion #12: 350.3.1 Departmental Membership Qualification; 350.3.3
Nominating Committee. K. Yousif, E. Hampton. Vote: 9-0-0
1. R. Guell: We have next week to deal with this and others—12, 13,
13a. The reason I pulled 350.3 is to ask whether we wish to
replicate the language that we passed two springs ago that
16
motivated D. Bradley’s creation of the Taskforce to begin with. Is
it regular or tenure and tenure-track faculty that make up the search
committee for chair? I will suggest we do what we did in the
spring of 2013 and strike “full-time” in “tenured or tenure-track
faculty” and insert the word “regular.”
2. K. Bolinger: What do you do with smaller departments?
3. R. Guell: Smaller departments are dealt with in 350.3.3.2, which
includes additional members from outside. I move we strike in
both places “full time tenure and tenure-track.” R. Guell, A.
Anderson. Vote: 9-0-0
4. D. Bradley: Not just “but not more than seven who shall conduct a
search for candidates?”
5. V. Sheets: On the additional member would you strike it there as
well?
6. R. Guell: Yes. Select “regular” there as well.
7. E. Hampton: “Regular faculty members” needs to stay there.
8. C. Olsen: In various places, should we say “regular” instead of
full-time?
9. E. Hampton: Who is nominated needs to remain regular faculty
members. Regular faculty members need to nominate regular
faculty members.
10. K. Yousif: How does this correspond with the language that was
passed last year where they didn’t have the same voting rights on
nomination of the chair?
11. R. Guell: It was the year before, and the issue was removal and
selection, and the language that ultimately passed was really
controversial. It asked for a majority of tenure and tenure-track
faculty. I am hoping we can rely on reasonable search committee
representation.
12. K. Yousif: I didn’t support the language two years ago, but I am
wondering about the language.
13. D. Bradley: That language was never placed in the Handbook
either.
14. R. Guell: The language never got in. I don’t want to relitigate this
one on the floor.
15. C. MacDonald: On 350.3.3.2 it sounds better if we reword it to “If
five regular faculty are not available within the department…”
16. L. Eberman: I have two questions: One, is there a reason why there
has to be a max of seven? And two, do we think this policy is
17
being followed? I have been on two committees where this has not
been followed.
17. D. Bradley: I don’t think there is a value in a mandated maximum,
but if an eight-person department wants to be on the committee…
18. V. Sheets: This is just nominating committee, not the search
committee.
19. R. Guell: Strike “but not more than seven?”
20. K. Yousif: Regarding 350.3.1, I thought that’s what you were
going to clean up from last week.
21. R. Guell: I think the whole thing needs to be struck. I think it’s
possible. Let’s just suppose there is a fictitious figure that doesn’t
get along in one department and a conciliatory figure in another.
You might want to go for a non-interim chair with the patience and
wisdom to heal wounds so a few years down the line you can go to
another chair.
22. C. Olsen: You would still want to choose someone in the same
college. Can we remove the end of the sentence from “to
become…” on?
23. K. Bolinger: I agree with the original assumption. When you look
at the chair’s duties I don’t need expertise in Arts & Sciences.
24. S. Lamb: I move it to go.
25. J. Maynard: Perhaps we should delete the phrase “in the
discipline” as well. That will take care of the issue.
5. Adjournment 5:10pm.