Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) - April 1, 2011

Attendance

Present: Alex Blazer, Ben Davis, Sandra Gangstead, Sally Humphries, Mike Rose, Craig Turner, Charles Ubah

Regrets: Lee Digiovanni, Sandra Jordan, Fadhili Mshana, Susan Steele, Mike Whitfield

Absent: William Risch

Guest: Susan Allen, Paul Jones, Tom Ormond

Activity and Agreements

1.   Call to order: The committee chair called the meeting to order at 12:35 p.m.

2.   Agenda: A motion to approve the tentative agenda of the 1 Apr 2011 as circulated was made, seconded, and approved with the agreement that the chair could adjust the priority of the draft committee annual report to ensure its consideration by the committee at this meeting given that this meeting was the last scheduled meeting of the committee for the 2010-2011 academic year.

3.   Minutes: A motion to approve the 4 Mar 2011 minutes was made, seconded, and approved.

4.   Recognitions: The faculty members who served as “volunteers” on the committee (i.e. faculty who did not serve as university senators during the 2010-2011 academic year) were awarded a certificate of recognition signed by President Leland for their service on FAPC during the 2010-2011 academic year. The committee chair expressed appreciation to these faculty for their service and contributions to FAPC during the 2010-2011 academic year. Those recognized were Alex Blazer (CoAS), Ben Davis (Library), and Sally Humphries (CoB). Susan Steele (CoHS) was recognized in absentia and her certificate will be delivered to her by the committee chair.

5.   Informational Items: A number of informational items were provided, some generating activity.

A. Summer Pay Tax Withholdings / Extra Compensation

i.       Summer Pay: At the request of the committee, Ms Susan Allen had been invited to this meeting to provide the committee information on the Maymester pay date. Dr. Paul Jones accompanied her to the meeting and had sent an email to all university faculty regarding the modification of the Maymester pay date from 1 July to 3 June. A copy of this email is linked to the meeting agenda. Ms. Susan Allen provided the committee a financial history of the Maymester operation. Established practice has been to record summer receipts and expenditures in the fiscal year most of the summer teaching activity has taken place [i.e. the fiscal year after Maymester]. That practice will continue, with the payroll office arranging to provide a prepayment to faculty teaching Maymester with an early June payroll [3 June in 2011]. Ms. Allen asked that constituents (primarily unit administrators) turn in accurate and complete payroll information for the faculty who will teach courses during Maymester to ensure that these faculty receive their Maymester compensation during the prepayment [June payroll]. Errant or incomplete information may result in delaying disbursement to the July payroll date. Ms. Allen was asked if an email providing the deadline by which Maymester payroll information must be filed to ensure the faculty member teaching Maymester would be eligible for the prepayment (June pay) could be sent to the faculty email list. This would allow each faculty member who is planning to teach during the Maymester an opportunity to coordinate with her/his supervisor to assist in meeting the payroll information submission deadline. Ms. Allen indicated that such an email will be sent to faculty. The committee members present expressed appreciation to Ms. Susan Allen for her diligence and persistence in exploring and finding a way for faculty teaching Maymester to be paid at the end of Maymester [early June] rather than having to wait for the next fiscal year [July 1].

Extra Compensation: An update from the Provost was communicated by the Associate Provost to indicate that no new information was available on the extra compensation ruling from the USG/BoR and that current practice is expected to remain in effect until further notice.

B. Student Opinion Surveys Concern - Student Participation Rates

i.     Update for FAPC Motion 2 (3 Dec 2010) To recommend to the Provost that standard language be developed that will appear on all course syllabi to inform and encourage students to participate in completing Student Opinion Surveys.

Associate Provost Tom Ormond served as point person of the drafting committee [other members were Lisa Griffin, Stephanie McClure, and Ed Hale]. Feedback for the first draft of the course syllabi language was provided by the committee at its 4 Mar 2011 meeting. The second draft, informed by the recommended revisions, was then reviewed by the committee. A motion was made, seconded, discussed and approved to change the word “virtual” to the word technological. A second motion was made, seconded and approved, with no discussion, to endorse the wording of the second draft as amended [given below] and that this language be recommended for inclusion on all course syllabi.

DRAFT two of syllabi proposed language as amended: Given the technological sophistication of Georgia College students, the student opinion survey is being delivered through an online process. Your constructive feedback plays an indispensable role in shaping quality education at Georgia College. All responses are completely confidential and your name is not stored with your responses in any way. In addition, instructors will not see any results of the opinion survey until after final grades are submitted to the University. An invitation to complete the online opinion survey is distributed to students near the end of the semester. Your participation in this very important process is greatly appreciated.

ii.   Update on Student Opinion Survey language from Section 3.07.03.3 of the institution’s Academic Affairs Handbook.

Earlier in the academic year, ECUS requested that FAPC consider reviewing this language in the Academic Affairs Handbook. A two-part motion was made, seconded, discussed and approved, identified as

FAPC Motion 1 (1 Apr 2011) To recommend to the Provost that

(1)     the language in Section 3.07.03.3 of the institution’s Academic Affairs Handbook be updated to reflect the online delivery of the student opinion survey, with particular emphasis on items 1 and 5 of Section A as well as all of Section C.

(2)     the modified language be sent back to this committee for review.

iii. Update on FAPC Motion 1 (4 Feb 2011) with committee consideration postponed to 1 Apr 2011 meeting. FAPC Motion 1 (4 Feb 2011) as amended at 4 March 2011 FAPC meeting To recommend to the Provost that student opinion survey results be used for both formative and summative faculty evaluation purposes.

A motion was made, seconded and approved and identified as

FAPC Motion 2 (1 Apr 2011) To postpone consideration of FAPC Motion 1 (4 Feb 2011) to be coincident with committee review of the modified language from Section 3.07.03.3 of the Academic Affairs Handbook indicated in part two of FAPC Motion 1 (1 Apr 2011).

iv. Update on Provost shall review how SOS narratives are being managed and disseminated to faculty action from 3 Dec 2010 meeting.

An update was provided by the Associate Provost to indicate that narratives (student comments submitted via the online SOS) are now provided and available electronically to each department chair who can download this information from the Department Chairs Menu within PAWS and disseminate the information to the faculty in her/his department. In addition to the email reminders being sent from Institutional Research personnel to the department chairs, the Provost’s Office recently provided the academic deans with the proper procedure by which department chairs should provide SOS narratives to their respective faculty.

v.   Update on FAPC Motion 1 (3 Dec 10): To recommend that Student Opinion Surveys be administered to all classes with ten or more students.

This motion was sent by FAPC to ECUS for steering and steered by ECUS at its 21 Jan 2011 meeting back to FAPC, endorsed by FAPC at its 4 Feb 2011 meeting as an advisory motion to the Provost, and sent to the Provost by the FAPC chair on 15 Feb 2011.

The Associate Provost provided an update from the Provost to indicate that the Provost had accepted this recommendation and that it will be implemented during the current term. It was also noted a mechanism is in development to allow a faculty member in consultation with her/his department chair to request that an online SOS be administered to a class with fewer than ten students. This mechanism is anticipated to be available for the Fall 2011 semester.

It should be noted that the number of classes to which SOS are administered that are selected to inform annual faculty evaluation is articulated in the aforementioned section 3.07.03.3 of the institution’s Academic Affairs Handbook, and its consideration is thus included in the motion above identified as FAPC Motion 1 (1 Apr 2011).

C. Desk Copies Update on the committee charge to its chair to "pass on to Provost Jordan constituency recommendations for alternatives to reselling desk copies provided by publishers." Several options were forwarded to the Provost by the committee following its 14 Jan 2011 meeting. These options were communicated via email to the Provost by the committee chair on 20 Jan 2011. Option k was formally removed by the committee at its 4 Feb 2011 during the review of the 14 Jan 2011 meeting minutes.

The Associate Provost communicated an update from the Provost to indicate that a committee recommendation of a single best option was preferable to the menu of suggestions previously submitted. After some deliberation, a recommendation was made by the committee that the feasibility of the institution’s library serving as a clearing house for unwanted text books be explored. Ben Davis of the library, a member of the committee, indicated his intention to explore this feasibility through his administrative chain and appropriate library personnel. Associate Provost Ormond agreed to communicate this recommendation to Provost Jordan.

D. Update on “Faculty Evaluation, Triggering Reviews of Department Chairs" Motion from 4 Mar 2011 FAPC meeting. The committee chair indicated that this motion had been forwarded on behalf of the committee via email to the Provost on 10 Mar 2011 with a response on 21 Mar 2011 from the Provost to indicate this motion would be studied and taken under advisement with an update provided to the committee at its 1 Apr 2011 meeting.

FAPC Motion 1 (4 Mar 2011) To recommend that

(1)   each members of the 2010-2011 Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) educate her/his constituency (faculty colleagues) that faculty have an opportunity to inform the evaluation of an academic administrator [see Section 3.07.01 of the Georgia College Academic Affairs Handbook].

(2)   the Provost ensure that the administrative evaluation process include a mechanism by which the appropriate personnel solicit developmental feedback, on an annual basis, from the faculty to inform an administrative evaluation. In particular, a recommendation that each Academic Dean actively solicit developmental feedback, on an annual basis, from faculty to inform the administrative evaluation of the department chair or unit supervisor of the faculty. Care should be taken to ensure confidentiality in the collection of this developmental feedback from the faculty. The “Faculty Recommendations for Administrative Development” form (modified version of the existing Part IV) is provided as a sample form that could be used to collect this feedback.

The Associate Provost communicated an update from the Provost to indicate that this motion is still under consideration.

E. Update on Academic Year Faculty Availability in the Summer,

i. Update on closure on the review of letters for language on summer faculty service by deans and department chairs. There was no definitive information to indicate that this review had concluded in all the academic units but there was confirmation that this request had been circulated to deans earlier in the academic year (as reported at earlier meetings of this committee).

ii. Update on FAPC Motion 1 (14 Jan 2011): To recommend that the Provost instruct all academic administrators that no faculty member be required to perform duties while not under contract. Further, that refusal by a faculty member to perform tasks while not under contract shall not be considered during the tenure application process, annual evaluations or merit increase decisions.

Associate Provost Tom Ormond provided an update from the Provost communicating

a. This motion was still under consideration by the Provost and has stimulated a rich dialogue with and among the academic deans. One of the threads of this dialogue has been an interest toward developing a “best practice,” rather than a policy.

b. The many job responsibilities and different types of contracts at the institution will all need to be considered in any final decision.

A brief discussion included questions about status of scholarship on campus during the summer, weekend contact by students, and consideration for availability to students by faculty who teach online courses. The Associate Provost agreed to inform the ongoing dialogue with these questions.

6. Committee Annual Report (Due Date: 22 Apr 2011)

IV.Section 2. Reports. The committees listed in V.Section2.A.1 shall constitute the standing committees of the University Senate. Each standing committee and the Executive Committee shall present a comprehensive, written, annual report in an appropriate format to the Executive Committee. This report shall include a summary of the major items considered by the committee during the academic year and the disposition of each. The Executive Committee shall set a due date and the format of these reports in consultation with the standing committee chairs and these reports shall be posted with the minutes of the last University Senate meeting of the academic year.

The committee chair had received permission from the committee to prepare a draft of the annual report for review by the committee members. This draft had been completed 31 Mar 2011 and was distributed to members of the committee for review. In particular, the chair requested feedback from the committee to inform the sections entitled “Committee Reflections”, “Committee Recommendations” and “Recommend items for consideration at the governance retreat.” These three sections of the 2009-2010 FAPC report were circulated to the committee to let them know what had been submitted by the previous FAPC.

Discussion resulted in endorsement of repeating the “Use of Workgroups” recommendation from the 2009-2010 report. Positive feedback about the organization of this year’s committee was given, along with several verbal suggestions including:

a. Tracking of the issues that merited ongoing committee deliberation throughout the year worked well.

b. Use of work groups, identification of possible agenda items at the organizational meeting to permit committee work groups the opportunity to convene during the summer, and tentative agenda with flexibility to consider “as they come” issues all worked well.

c. A recommendation that an exploration of how widely [just one faculty member, several faculty members] concerns of an issue that is submitted to the committee extend inform committee deliberation of the concern. As one example, this practice was implemented during 2010-2011 by means of a survey to inform committee deliberation of the matter of Academic Year Faculty Availability in the Summer.

d. A recommendation that the committee continue to respect the language in Article I Section 2 the University Senate bylaws that “The University Senate strives to be mindful and respectful of matters that are more appropriately handled at the divisional, college, and department levels, but may make recommendations concerning matters within these areas that have broader institutional impact or implications.”

e. A recommendation to include the “open questions” [issues that have not been entirely resolved during the 2010-2011] be included under “Committee Recommendations” to permit the 2011-2012 FAPC to be aware of these matters. In particular, the SOS motions made earlier, FAPC Motion 1 (1 Apr 2011) and FAPC Motion 2 (1 Apr 2011) were recommended for inclusion.

At this point, the committee chair indicated the time for adjournment (1:45) had been reached and that the meeting could continue only if there was a motion to extend the meeting time.  A motion to extend the meeting time long enough to receive a report from the Post-Tenure Review Work Group was made, seconded and approved.

7. Work Group Update:

A.     Post-Tenure Review Work Group: A draft of the working document under review by the work group [Martha Colvin - CoHS, Nancy Davis Bray - Library, Lee Digiovanni - CoE, Ken Farr - CoB, Mike Rose - CoAS, Craig Turner – CoAS] was circulated as a supporting document of the meeting agenda. Mike Rose provided an update to the committee on behalf of the work group. The Post-Tenure Review work group maintains a web presence accessible by following the “Post Tenure Review Work Group” link at the top of the FAPC web presence and offered for committee consideration a recommendation that this work group continue its work during April 2011 and provide an update to the 2011-2012 FAPC at its organizational meeting which is scheduled for 29 Apr 2011. This recommendation was endorsed by the committee members that were present.

8. Adjourn: There being no further business, the committee chair thanked all members for their service and contributions to the work of the 2010-2011 FAPC after which a motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved. The meeting adjourned at 1:49 p.m.

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

5.B.i        Forward to the Provost an update on the FAPC endorsement of the second draft of the Syllabi statement concerning student survey participation including the recommendation of its inclusion on all course syllabi. (Craig Turner)

5.B.ii       Forward FAPC Motion 1 (1 Apr 2011) to the Provost. (Craig Turner)

5.B.iii      Ensure that FAPC Motion 2 (1 Apr 2011) is included in “Committee Recommendations” section of the annual report of the 2010-2011 FAPC. (Craig Turner)

5.B.v      Ensure that the information regarding SOS selected to inform faculty annual evaluation is included in “Committee Recommendations” section of the annual report of the 2010-2011 FAPC. (Craig Turner)

5.C.1      Communicate with administrative chain and appropriate library personnel to explore the feasibility of the library serving as a clearinghouse for unwanted Desk Copies. (Ben Davis)

5.C.2      Communicate the resulting recommendation on Desk Copies to the Provost (Tom Ormond)

5.D.         Ensure inclusion of appropriate information in “Committee Recommendations” section of the annual report of the 2010-2011 FAPC. (Craig Turner)

5.E.1       Ensure inclusion of appropriate information in “Committee Recommendations” section of the annual report of the 2010-2011 FAPC. (Craig Turner)

5.E.2       Ensure the continuing dialogue among the academic deans on Academic Year Faculty Availability in the Summer is informed by this FAPC deliberation. (Tom Ormond)

6.             Ensure inclusion of appropriate information in “Committee Recommendations” section of the annual report of the 2010-2011 FAPC. (Craig Turner)

7.             Ensure inclusion of appropriate information in “Committee Recommendations” section of the annual report of the 2010-2011 FAPC. (Craig Turner)

Tentative Agenda for the next FAPC meeting (29 Apr 2011 Arts & Sciences 1-16)

This will be the organizational meeting of the 2011-2012 FAPC and agenda should include the election of the officers for 2011-2012 as well as a report from the 2010-2011 Post-Tenure Review Work Group as indicated in item 7.A above.