Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) - November 4, 2011

Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) Minutes - 04 Nov 2011

 Next meeting: Friday, 2 December 2011, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. in Arts & Sciences 1-16

Present:  Dean Baker, Carrie Cook, David de Posada, Victoria Deneroff, Karynne Kleine, Mary Magoulick, Craig Turner, Mike Whitfield.

Absent:   None

Regrets:  David Connolly, Provost Sandra Jordan, Leslie Moore, Holley Roberts, Mike Rose.

Guests:   Jason Huffman.

 Activity and Agreements

1. Call to Order: Craig Turner, committee chair, called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.

2. Agenda: A motion to approve the 04 November 2011 agenda, as circulated, was made, seconded, and approved.

3. Minutes: A motion to approve the 07 October 2011 FAPC meeting minutes, as circulated, was made, seconded, and approved.

4. Informational Items:

A. Report on the 14 October 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. The minutes of the 7 October 2011 FAPC meeting document three actions that David was asked to take on behalf of FAPC.

i. Submit the item of “start/end dates of academic year faculty contracts” for steering as this item is presently being considered by both Academic Policy Committee (APC) and FAPC. David reported that no representative of the APC was present at the joint meeting and that there was some discussion about whether APC had ever had this item on their agenda. Members of the University Senate who were present at this FAPC meeting recall that during the 23 September 2011 University Senate meeting, the APC Chair indicated that the issue had been discussed by APC. In fact, the APC report in the 23 September 2011 University Senate minutes documents that the APC Chair did report confusion over the return to work date for faculty and that the item was being added to the ECUS agenda in two weeks (7 October 2011). As the 14 October 2011 joint meeting ended before this issue was definitively steered to APC or FAPC, David indicated, at the request of members of FAPC, that he would seek clarification of the steering of this item during the next joint meeting scheduled for 11 November 2011.

ii. Communicate to Executive Committee the belief that “standing committee officer mentoring (guidance on operating procedures)“, an item from the tentative FAPC agenda list from the 10 August 2011 governance retreat, is outside the scope of FAPC and is directed to Executive Committee for steering. David reported that he shared this item and that the ECUS response was that they will look into it.

iii. Follow-up on the steering of the matter of “years of service recognition lag (e.g. 10 years of service recognized during the 11^th year of service)” noting this might more appropriately be considered by RPIPC than FAPC since years of service recognition is given for all employees (faculty and staff). David reported that he shared this item. The draft minutes indicate it was steered to RPIPC by the Executive Committee.

B. Report on the 28 October 2011 University Senate meeting: At the request of some members of FAPC, Craig Turner, FAPC Chair, provided information about items discussed at the 28 October 2011 University Senate meeting, including updates from the Presidential Search Committee, the University President’s report regarding the Chancellor’s visit, the Provost’s report, and voting on the CAPC motion regarding the modification to the CAPC review process for concentrations within a program.

C. Nomination of Julia Metzker to serve of the University Chairs Council Student Opinion Survey Work Group: Craig Turner, FAPC Chair, informed the committee that Julia Metzker accepted this nomination and is now serving as a member of the University Chairs Council Student Opinion Survey Work Group.

5. Action Items:

A. Student Opinion Survey Work Group Recommendations: Deliberation continued about the FAPC Student Opinion Survey Work Group recommendation that “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 work group members offered rationale to the committee for this recommendation as a form of advocating for faculty voice in such matters and affording the faculty formal documentation in the institutional policy manual of the right to have this voice. At previous FAPC meetings, committee members expressed concern about the wording of the recommendation and suggested avoiding language that was too broad or too specific. There was further discussion about whether FAPC should put forward this recommendation as a motion to the University Senate as presently worded or if alternate language should be developed prior to being considered for submission as a motion to the University Senate. The work group members advocated for the development of alternate language indicating the current language had not been drafted with publication in the policy manual in mind. There were several suggestions made for revisions, including the inclusion of specific examples to illustrate the context in which faculty should have meaningful involvement, and wording revisions [revisions indicated in bold] such as “Academic year faculty should have meaningful and substantive involvement in all issues related to faculty evaluation.” There was further discussion about whether the wording in these suggestions was too broad or too specific. A motion charging the FAPC Student Opinion Survey Work Group (Karynne Kleine, Carrie Cook, Craig Turner) to prepare a revision of the language in this recommendation for FAPC consideration informed by the committee deliberation was made, 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): Committee members discussed undertaking a review of the pre-tenure review language. At the 07 October 2011 meeting there was some discussion about completing the review of the post-tenure review language before beginning a review of the pre-tenure review language, however some members indicated that it may be feasible to start this review sooner rather than later. The committee did not make a formal decision on the timing of this review.

ii.  IFR from academic year to calendar year: The committee discussed forming a work group to address this item. 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.

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: While consideration of this item was postponed to the next meeting, a written update was provided by the work group chair (Mike Rose) to the committee prior to the meeting and is included here.

i.  The committee met last on October 18, 2011. A review of the University of West Georgia (UWG) post-tenure document was conducted, with inconclusive results. As the nature of UWG's procedures (as delineated in their official document) differed significantly from the current GC process for post-tenure review, a recommendation was made to expand the review to those in use at other USG institutions. The University of West Georgia post-tenure document was not a recent revision as was once believed.

ii.  An effort was made to repopulate several work group seats in an effort to provide adequate representation across the faculty, meaning to have at least one representative from each college and the library. Jeanne Sewell will represent the College of Health Sciences, while the identification of representatives from the College of Education and the Library are in progress. Active members of the committee include Ken Farr representing the College of Business and Mike Rose and Craig Turner representing the College of Arts & Sciences.

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

8. Adjourn: As indicated in 5.B.ii 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.

4.A.i.      At the 11 November 2011 joint meeting of Standing Committee Chairs and Executive Committee, 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 de Posada)

5.A.        Revise the language of the FAPC student opinion survey work group recommendation regarding academic year faculty voice in faculty evaluation for FAPC consideration. (Karynne Kleine, Carrie Cook, Craig Turner)

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