Minutes for H&S Faculty Senate Meeting, Friday March 21th, 2014
Present:, Paula Murray Cole, Brendan Murday, Hugh Egan, Dara Engler, Claire Gleitman, Peter
Melcher, Sharon Stansfield, Carla Stetson, Kelley Sullivan, Jennifer Tennant, David Turkon,
Michael Trotti and Aaron Weinberg.
Absent: Jennifer Jolly and Peyi Soyinka-Airewele
Guest: Dean Leslie Lewis
Meeting started at 4:05 pm
1) Feb 28th, 2014 minutes approved. (9 approve, 1 abstention)
2) Announcements and updates:
A) Election update from Brendan Murday: Senators that will be ending service:
Dara Engler, Peter Melcher, Brendan Murday, Peyi Soyinka-Airewele (a oneyear sabbatical) David Turkon, Michael Trotti (one-year replacement) and
Aaron Weinberg.
B) Faculty Council update: David Turkon
i.
Nothing to report
C) Update on Budgeting process: Dean Leslie Lewis
i.
Starting 15/16 academic year. Exchanging the “Historical” process for
a “Zero-based” budgeting process. This is not a budget cutting
process, just a new way to match budgets to expenses.
ii.
Allows the college to have “real” budget. New VP in Finance and
Administration wants to make the budgeting process match the needs
based on planning upfront, rather than spending down budgets at the
end of the year. The current “Historical” model results in a 20 million
dollar pile of funds that are a “surplus” and these do not match the
budget.
iii. The Dean’s office is investigating ways to provide planning system for
departments to make the process less daunting and burdensome.
iv.
This new budgeting procedure is only in reference to Operating
Budgets and not salary.
3) Reports from Subcommittees:
A) Peer Review of Teaching Subcommittee: Brought forward Physics Department’s
peer review statement. Motion to recommend to the Dean was approved
(approved - unanimous).
B) Scholarship Statement Committee:
i.
Scholarship Subcommittee: Brought forward the Politics Department’s
scholarship statement. Senate feels that the guidelines are well thought
out; however, it is recommended that the subcommittee will make
suggestions to the Department to make some minor changes that would
enhance clarity.
4) Old Business:
A) Student Statement Process guidelines: Discuss responses that we received to the
draft at the all-school meeting. Discussion – does Senate need to revise the
document further? Should Senate vote to approve?
i. Discussion on the faculty meeting. Issues that were raised involved
proctoring, numbering, and who has access. Main issues raised at the
faculty meeting surrounded #’s 3, 4, 11 and 12.
ii. Proctoring issues: Who is responsible for arranging proctoring? The
faculty or Department? Who is considered to be not a member of the class
and appropriate to proctor. To address these issues, members of the
Executive Committee will write up options to address the proctoring issue
and these will be discussed and voted upon at the next Senate meeting.
iii. It is still not clear who has access to the data, and the proper chain of
custody. However, it is clear that the College owns the evaluations.
iv. #3: Alter it to give faculty the option to read it, project it, or put it on the
evaluation form.
v. #7 eliminate numerical. Add a sentence: “If words are used, again… “
vi. #11 – Add in the language that “Chairs and other Personnel Committee
members…”
vii. Motion to eliminate #12 (9 In favor, 4 abstentions).
5) New Business:
A) Full Professor Scholarship Statements: How should Senate begin the process of
reviewing departments' scholarship requirements for full professorship? Two
relevant documents were circulated: one contained the general thoughts offered
by the current scholarship subcommittee about possible criteria for full professor
statements; and the other offers examples of statements that have been devised
already by several departments, though none have yet been officially reviewed.
Question asked to Senate: Can we form a subcommittee? This will discussed at
the next meeting.
B) Started in October 2012. Criteria for Full Professor has been drafted, but none of
the departments in H&S have had their Full Professor’s policy evaluated or vetted
by Senate.
C) Senate raised the issue that if the Faculty Handbook Amendment Committee
changes requirements for Full professorship in the handbook, this would affect
Senate’s work on this process. Question is whether Senate should move forward
or wait to work on this task. This will be discussed at the next Senate meeting.
6) Meeting adjourned at: 6:03 PM