COMMITTEE: Faculty Governance Committee *

MEETING DATE: January 24, 2007

PERSON PRESIDING: Puri Martinez, Chair

REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Patricia Anderson, John Cope, Mary Gilliland, Edson Justiniano, Bob Morrison, Catherine Rigsby

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Kristen Bonatz, Phyllis Horns, Mark Taggart, Jim Smith, Deirdre Mageean

OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Lori Lee, Alan White

ACTIONS OF MEETING

Agenda Item: 1. Approval of Minutes from 12/10/06.

Discussion: No discussion. Approval moved by Gilliland and seconded by Cope.

Action Taken: Minutes were unanimously approved as distributed.

Agenda Item: 2. Copy of letter from UNC President Bowles approving revisions to Appendix D with a few editorial exceptions received January 22, 2007. This matter was inserted into the Agenda since the agenda was emailed Monday January 22, 2007 at 10:13 AM.

Discussion: The Code Section 605 C makes the Board of Trustees the last internal review. The language regarding termination (lines 1726-1755) in Appendix D should reflect that change and delete “appeal to the Board of Governors”. Bonatz will check this.

The next exception describes a citation (line 350) which no longer exists and proposes an alternative citation (IV.D.3) which is correct. Additionally the reference to IV.E actually appear to refer to IV.C (lines 643-645). We concur.

The revised policy calling for hearings to be conducted pursuant to Robert’s Rules of Order (lines 1371 and 1660). It is noted that Robert’s Rules of Order focuses on meetings and motions and is not well-suited for conducting hearings. We are urged to reconsider this designation. We did reconsider it and wish to use Robert’s Rules of Order. President Bowles regards this as a campus decision and acceptable as long as the hearings comply with due process.

The approval of Appendix D with the above noted editorial changes will be announced to Chancellor Ballard to advise the BOT and will be announced to the Faculty Senate on Tuesday, January 30, 2007.

The matter of when will the new Appendix D be implemented followed. It is concluded that the Chancellor will make the determination but the Committee should provide a suggestion. The letter of January 9, 2007 states that we “may use this revised policy until corrections are made. You may make corrections of the above items…without my subsequent review.” Some suggested starting now. Anderson pointed out that this could be disruptive to faculty (and committees) in the process of active review at this time. The revised Appendix D changes which committee (tenure instead of personnel) writes the Progress Toward Tenure Letter. Anderson recommends implementation occurring July 1, 2007. Justiniano points out this will delay the implementation for two years.

Horns notes that implementing it for decisions about to be initiated (looking at the February 1 start of timeline in XIII) may be an opportunity to remind units how the changes will work. A letter from the Vice Chancellors and Chair of the Faculty Senate using some of the information from the meeting of October 13, 2006 could be helpful. Smith noted that Academic Affairs has 80 personnel actions to be reviewed under the previous Appendix D. It was proposed that Sutton, Peele, and Ingalls provide information highlighting the changes for faculty as well as directors and chairs to review.

Action Taken: It was moved by Martinez and seconded by Gilliland that the changes suggested in the President’s letter of January 9, 2007 be made. These will be sent to the Chancellor and presented as Announcements at the Faculty Senate meeting of January 30, 2007. The motion passed unanimously.

Justiniano moved and Morrison seconded the following, “All personnel decisions will be subject to the provisions of revised Appendix D as approved January 9, 2007 except for those personnel decisions still under active review.” The motion passed with one nay vote and no abstentions.

Agenda Item: 3. Preparation for presentation of Part XII to the Senate on January 30, 2007.

Discussion: An email from George Bailey sent Friday January 19, 2007 points out the uncertainty in the language describing the “the period of time appropriate to the decision” which has been omitted from the cumulative format. Some believe that the decision to promote to professor be limited to work done since promotion to associate while others believe that the scholarship of a lifetime should be considered in making the decision. The faculty will want to know what goes into the PAD.

Martinez drafted language to address this concern. Justiniano recommended that the language be moved to the introduction to Part XII rather than limiting it to the mention of the time frame for cumulative review. Further suggestions provided the following language in The Personnel Action Dossier, as a second introductory paragraph,

“In the review process, attention is paid both to productivity since the date of hire, tenure or last promotion action (whichever is more recent) and accomplishments over one’s entire career. Within the PAD the candidate should supply dates for all listed activities and accomplishments, making it possible for reviewers to identify clearly the chronology of accomplishments related to the time of hire, tenure or last promotion (which ever is more recent).“

General approval of the language was expressed with addition of tenure. The use of the term “personnel actions" rather than “promotion” was discarded as implying the necessity to prepare such information annually. Grievance procedures regarding tenurability have at times considered productivity prior to hire at this University. Martinez pointed out that the committee has believed that the accomplishments of the whole career should be included in such decisions. Bonatz considered how such language could be used in grievances. We believe that the University’s position was stated sufficiently clearly in the proposed language.

Justiniano proposed adding “as stated above” in several sections. Bonatz stated that this appears to be more than an editorial change. The “as stated above” was not added.

Mageean noted that in the listing of “5. Educational background: degrees, dates conferred, and institutions…” that internships were now a part of other disciplines and not limited to medicine. The following language was proposed and accepted to replace “BSOM only” in this section, “Include the following where applicable:”

Action Taken: Anderson moved that the changes be presented on the floor of the senate as amendment, Cope seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 4. Faculty Evaluation of Administrators

An overview of the material sent today was provided by Martinez: an article from AAUP and information from peer institutions was assembled as a draft and given to a subcommittee which made no objections. It includes a section which attempts to clarify an assembly of resolutions and interpretations which address the evaluation of administrators. We want to do this after first year of administrative service but nothing like that is included in anything we have done to date in any of the Appendices. The material proposes to change Appendix L to include all resolutions and interpretations relating to administrators evaluations. Where there was a discrepancy in “Preamble” and Section “H” the interval was changed to 5 years.

Discussion: Taggart questioned whether we were going to try to define the constituencies. Martinez we were not doing so in this document and questioned who would decide? Sentence describing constituencies was located by Taggart. Bonatz pointed out that faculty input is to be given to the BOT and Chancellor to be taken into consideration with the other constituencies.

Action: The committee as a whole will work with this at next meeting to consider Appendix L. Last year’s effort working with only a part of Appendix C led to problems.

Adjourn: 1643 hours

NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Faculty Evaluation of Administrators and Appendix L

Mary Gilliland, Acting Secretary