•Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) - February 3, 2012

Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) Minutes - 03 Feb 2012

Attendance

Present:  Dean Baker, David Connolly, Carrie Cook, David de Posada, Victoria Deneroff, Provost Sandra Jordan, Karynne Kleine, Leslie Moore, Craig Turner, Mike Whitfield.

Absent:   Mike Rose.

Regrets:  Mary Magoulick, Holley Roberts.

Guests:   None.

Activity and Agreements

1. Call to Order: Craig Turner, committee chair, called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m.
2. Agenda: Craig Turner, committee chair, indicated that he had been contacted by the Provost who had requested that consideration of item 4.C on the agenda be postponed. Provost Jordan confirmed this information and indicated that she would provide an update on items in the “committee recommendation” section of the 2010-2011 FAPC annual report at a later date requesting guidance from the committee on the desired format of this update. A committee member indicated a preference that the update be provided in writing and there was no objection to this preference from any member of the committee. The Provost indicated that she would provide the update in writing at a later date, possibly by email to the committee listserv. In light of this information, a motion to approve the agenda with consideration of item 4.C postponed to the next meeting was made, seconded, and approved.
3. Minutes: A motion to approve the 02 December 2011 FAPC meeting minutes, as circulated, was made, seconded, and approved. A motion to approve the 13 January 2012 FAPC meeting minutes, as circulated, was made, seconded, and approved.
4. Informational Items: 

1. The next joint meeting of Standing Committee Chairs (SCC) and Executive Committee (ECUS) is scheduled for February 10: Craig Turner stated there was no update as there had been no joint meeting since FAPC last met on 13 January 2011.
2. A faculty concern about common meeting time: Some committee members expressed concern that the change to the common meeting time that took effect in fall 2011 – a shift from Monday 12:20-1:50 and Friday 12:20-1:50 to Friday 2:00-5:00 – seems to make the scheduling of meetings for groups not designated in the governance calendar more challenging. Another committee member observed that most faculty spend more time in meetings each week than is set aside by the current three hour common meeting block. There was a reminder that recently a faculty member [Dee Sams] had filed a report with the Executive Committee prepared by some marketing majors that had articulated similar concerns with the current common meeting time for scheduling meetings of student groups. It was further noted that while the previous common meeting time of Monday and Friday 12:20-1:50 was in effect, many faculty and student groups would meet Wednesday 12:20-1:50 as virtually no classes were scheduled at this Wednesday time. Some suggestions were made about how to consider this issue (including looking at the current schedules, conducting a faculty survey, requesting the development of tools to assist in scheduling of meetings of faculty groups, etc.). There was also brief discussion about whether this item was within the scope of FAPC or APC. One committee member observed that while classes are important faculty meetings are necessary to conduct institutional business and expressed the opinion that the aforementioned change to the common meeting time and class start times seems to underemphasize the necessity for having sufficient time to schedule meetings. Another committee member noted that presently very few classes are scheduled with a start time of 8:00 a.m. and thus scheduling meetings with 8:00 a.m. start times might be a feasible option for some faculty groups. The committee members charged the committee chair to bring this issue to the 10 February 2012 joint meeting of Standing Committee Chairs and Executive Committee to seek guidance and determine whether this concern resonates with other faculty. 
3. Updates on items in the “committee recommendation” section of the 2010-2011 FAPC annual report: As indicated in item 2 above, consideration of this item has been postponed to the next FAPC meeting.

5. Action Items:

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

                                                        i.            IFR from academic year to calendar year: At the 13 January 2011 meeting, Mary Magoulick agreed to draft a position statement in consultation with Lee Gillis, University Chairs Council Chair, and circulate it by email to FAPC members. An email with the position statement was circulated by Mary for FAPC review prior to this meeting. In addition, supporting documents for the timeline offered in the position statement are linked to the meeting agenda at the FAPC web presence and indicate that the transition from calendar year to academic year occurred in two stages. The committee chair noted that the motion made by the committee at its 13 January meeting was provided on the agenda and read as A motion to draft a statement of the FAPC position and to have academic deans solicit faculty feedback from the faculty members in their respective academic units (colleges and the library) was made, seconded and approved. There was some discussion among members about this issue. One committee member wondered why FAPC would solicit responses from faculty via the academic deans by providing its position statement. A concern was expressed that this approach appears to tell faculty what their opinion should be. There was discussion about the benefits of offering the Provost feedback from all concerned parties including department chairs, university faculty, and FAPC. Discussion ensued about the best way to solicit faculty feedback. Suggestions from FAPC members included sending faculty a survey asking for them to express a preference for academic year, a preference for calendar year or to indicate ambivalence. Another suggestion was having FAPC members discuss the issue with their respective constituencies (colleges, departments). A point was made that another faculty survey may not be prudent in light of the anecdotal perception that many faculty already feel overloaded with surveys. A motion to amend the position statement by (1) removing the word “awkwardly” from the first bulleted item (2) changing the words “problems”, “current system”, “benefits”, and “switching” from upper case to lower case (3) eliminating the sentence “This survey is to solicit input from the faculty as a whole.”, to rescind the portion of the 13 January 2012 motion that read to have academic deans solicit faculty feedback from the faculty members in their respective academic units (colleges and the library), and to endorse the draft position statement as amended as the FAPC position statement was made, seconded, and approved. This position statement, as amended and endorsed, is attached to these minutes as a supporting document.

                                                      ii.            Faculty pay (12 month pay for academic year faculty/ alternatives to 10 monthly checks): Craig Turner indicated that we are currently waiting for a response from the interim president, Stas Preczewski, about the 13 January 2012 FAPC recommendation that academic year faculty have the option of being paid according to a 10-month schedule or a 12-month schedule. Interim President Preczewski had responded by email to acknowledge his receipt of the request and his intent to look into this matter. Craig Turner provided the committee a document that summarized an email conversation with Susan Allen on this matter in which she requested FAPC feedback on how faculty would feel about the bi-monthly payment possibility as it’s back on the Shared Services Committee (SSC) agenda. After some discussion about bi-monthly pay, several members of FAPC expressed their impression that faculty are most interested in the addition of the 12-month pay option to the current 10-month pay option. FAPC agreed to postpone a discussion about bi-monthly pay until we receive the aforementioned response from the interim president. The committee chair was charged to relay this information to Susan Allen on behalf of the committee. Following the meeting, the aforementioned document summarizing the email conversation with Susan Allen was linked to the meeting agenda.

6. Updates from FAPC Work Groups:

1. Pre-tenure review language (review language in university policy manual): Victoria Deneroff indicated that this work group has not yet met.
2. Post-Tenure Review Work Group: Consideration of this item was postponed to the next FAPC meeting.
3. Student Opinion Survey Work Group Recommendation: The current draft of the work group recommendation under consideration states 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. A member asked for classification of the recommendation as policy, procedure, or practice. A member of the work group indicated the opinion that the recommendation is policy and noted that although it is currently practice to involve faculty members in decisions about faculty evaluation, there is concern that one day it may not be practice. This work group member went on to say that the recommendation was intended to advocate for faculty and articulate the role of faculty in the consideration of matters pertaining to faculty evaluation. There was an alternative opinion that the policy is “faculty shall be evaluated” and that the recommendation is a statement of best practice, and that developing policy to control a practice is beyond the charge of this committee or the university senate. There was some discussion about making a motion to amend the policy from “faculty shall be evaluated” to say something to the effect of “faculty shall be evaluated, having meaningful and substantive involvement in faculty evaluation.” Another member suggested that if the work group recommendation is a policy proposal, it should include language detailing the role of academic administrators [provost, deans, chairs] in faculty evaluation. At this point, a member of the committee observed the proximity to time for adjournment and as an alternative to revising the language as a committee of the whole, offered a motion to postpone consideration of this matter to the next meeting charging the student opinion survey work group to prepare at least one alternative version of the language for consideration by the committee. This motion was seconded and approved. Immediately, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made, seconded and approved.

7. Tentative Agenda for the next FAPC meeting: The tentative agenda for the next meeting included continued discussion of the agenda items (5.A.ii, 6.A, 6.B, and 6.C) that were postponed.

8. Adjourn: As indicated in 6.C above, a motion to adjourn (before all items on the agenda could be fully 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.B.        Discuss common meeting time issue at joint SCC and ECUS meeting. (Craig Turner)

5.A.i.      Amend the FAPC position statement on IFR calendar as specified in the motion in item 5.A.i above and attach it as an electronic supporting document when posting these meeting minutes. (Carrie Cook)

5.A.i       Link this IFR calendar supporting document to the 03 February 2011 meeting agenda. (Craig Turner)

5.A.ii.     Update Susan Allen on faculty postponement of bi-monthly pay discussion and link the aforementioned supporting document summarizing the email conversation to the meeting agenda. (Craig Turner)

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