•Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) - December 2, 2011

Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) Minutes - 02 Dec 2011

 Next meeting: Friday, 13 January 2012, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. in Arts & Sciences 1-16

Present:  Dean Baker, David Connolly, Carrie Cook, David de Posada, Provost Sandra Jordan, Mary Magoulick, Leslie Moore, Mike Rose, Craig Turner.

Absent:   None.

Regrets:  Victoria Deneroff, Karynne Kleine, Holley Roberts, Mike Whitfield.

Guests:   None.

 Activity and Agreements

1. Call to Order: Craig Turner, committee chair, called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m.


2. Agenda: A motion to approve the 02 December 2011 agenda, as circulated, was made, seconded, and approved.


3. Minutes: A motion to approve the 04 November 2011 FAPC meeting minutes, as circulated, was made, seconded, and approved.


4. Informational Items:

     A. Report on the 11 November 2011 joint meeting of Standing Committee Chairs (SCC) and Executive Committee (ECUS): David de Posada, FAPC Vice-Chair, attended this meeting and provided an update to the committee. David updated the committee on the actions he was requested he take on behalf of FAPC.

     i. Request clarification of the steering of “start/end dates of academic year faculty contracts” noting that the minutes of the 23 September 2011 University Senate meeting document Academic Policy Committee (APC) consideration of this matter. David reported the issue would be considered by ECUS. David also reported that during this meeting information was provided about faculty contract start/end dates from the years 1998-2012. For each of these years, the contract start date for academic year faculty has always been August 1 while end dates have varied between May 4 and May 14 and in recent years are set in close proximity to the due date for spring semester grades. He also stated that ECUS will review standing committee charges in the University Senate bylaws.

     B. Report on the 18 November 2011 University Senate meeting: Some elected faculty senators who are members of FAPC and were unable to attend the 18 November 2011 University Senate meeting requested a summary of the deliberation from that meeting.

     C. Report on the work of the University Chairs Council Student Opinion Survey (SOS) Work Group: Carrie Cook provided information about the progress of the work group. She reported that the work group would meet again in January 2012 and was still in the process of gathering information about surveys from some of the companies, including information on cost and survey questions. The Provost noted that the charge of this work group was to follow up on faculty concerns (originally reported by the University Chairs Council) that the current SOS was not reliable or adequate by comparing the currently used (locally produced) SOS to several nationally vetted surveys. The result of the review would be a report to the provost on the veracity of the concerns over the reliability of the current SOS. Additionally, while collecting and reviewing sample student surveys, the provost requested that the work group collect information on the cost of the professionally prepared instruments. Provost Jordan indicated that once the report is turned into her, there will be a need to determine what, if any, additional work is needed. If the report suggests the need for a change in the SOS, a larger, more representative group (with appropriate constituent representatives) will need to be formed to move the project to the next level. If the group indicates no significant difference exists between survey instruments, there may be no need for additional discussion or action.

     5. Action Items:

     A. Student Opinion Survey Work Group Recommendations: During the 04 November 2011 FAPC meeting a motion was made charging the FAPC Student Opinion Survey Work Group (Karynne Kleine, Carrie Cook, Craig Turner) to prepare, for committee deliberation, a revision of the language in their recommendation. Carrie Cook reported that the work group revised the language in the original recommendation (provided on page 8 of supporting documents) and asked the committee to consider the revised language for deliberation.  The original recommendation given at the 02 September 2011 FAPC meeting was “FAPC work group members agreed to recommend that FAPC should put forward a motion to the effect that faculty should have meaningful and substantive involvement in issues related to faculty evaluation, including the selection and/or creation of instruments used to assess or evaluate faculty performance.” The revised recommendation for committee consideration was “Recognizing that faculty in the academy share responsibility for developing and upholding standards of professionalism in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service, academic-year faculty shall actively participate in the determination and modification of policies governing faculty evaluation, and have meaningful and substantive involvement in reviewing and informing the development of procedures and practices appertaining. This includes but is not limited to the selection and/or creation of instruments used to assess or evaluate faculty performance.” The Provost asked Carrie to identify the underlying issue this recommendation is addressing. Carrie responded that the work group sees this recommendation as a form of faculty advocacy. Provost Jordan indicated her view is that the University Senate (faculty) recommends policy but does not develop procedure. Some committee members expressed a concern that the proposed language “reviewing and informing the development of procedures and practices appertaining” seems to extend the role of faculty into the administrative role of developing the procedures that implement policy. The FAPC Student Opinion Survey Work Group members present (Carrie Cook, Craig Turner) indicated that the work group’s intent was to formalize the role of faculty in decision-making and acknowledged there can be a disconnect between intent and reception. A lively discussion ensued where FAPC members expressed varying opinions about the recommendation, including: agreement that the recommendation formalizes appropriate involvement by faculty, concern that it will create an unnecessary divide between faculty and administrators, concern about the wording of the language being too broad or too narrow, a desire to abandon the recommendation altogether given that its adoption would not significantly affect the existing university culture, concern that the recommendation is redundant given the formal mechanisms for faculty voice that currently exist, and identification of relevant language from the American Association of University Professors (section 5 of the AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities) and BOR policy (3.2.4 Faculty Rules and Regulations). There was discussion about how the recommendation, if adopted, would be put forward. The FAPC Student Opinion Survey Work Group members present (Carrie Cook, Craig Turner) indicated that the work group’s deliberation focused its efforts on the development of the language rather than its final destination. Upon request, the committee chair offered possibilities for the committee’s consideration (a motion to the University Senate or publication in the policy manual etc.). During discussion of this item, the time (4:45 pm) for adjournment was reached. The Chair reminded the committee that the committee operating procedures called for adjournment unless the committee votes to extend the meeting. In response, a motion was made to postpone further discussion of this item and postpone discussion of the remaining items on the agenda to the next meeting and to adjourn this meeting. This motion was seconded and approved.

     B. Tentative agenda items for FAPC for the 2011-2012 academic year that remained after the 07 October 2011 meeting:

     i. Pre-tenure review language (review language in university policy manual): Consideration of this item was postponed to the next meeting.

     ii. IFR from academic year to calendar year: Consideration of this item was postponed to the next meeting.

     iii. Faculty pay (12 month pay for academic year faculty/ alternatives to 10 monthly checks): Consideration of this item was postponed to the next meeting.

     6. Updates from FAPC Work Groups:

     A. Student Opinion Survey Form: Consideration of this item was postponed to the next meeting.

     B. Post-Tenure Review Work Group: Consideration of this item was postponed to the next meeting.

     7. Tentative Agenda for the next FAPC meeting: The tentative agenda for the next meeting includes discussion of postponed agenda items (see items 5.A, 5.B.i, 5.B.ii., 5.B.iii, and 6 above).

     8. Adjourn: As indicated in 5.A. above and in compliance with committee operating procedures, a motion to adjourn (before all items on the agenda could be considered) was made, seconded and approved. The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m.

 Actions Some activities lead to actions to implement the committee agreements.

7.            Set the tentative agenda for the next FAPC meeting in consultation with the committee. (Craig Turner)