Faculty Governance Committee

Minutes of February 14, 2007

Regular members in attendance: Anderson, Gilliland, Jones, Justiniano, Martinez, Morrison

Ex-officio members in attendance: Horns, Mageean, Rigsby, Smith, Taggart

Others: Bonatz, Lee

I. The minutes of the January 24, 2007 meeting were approved.

II. The first topic of discussion was proposed revisions to Part XIII. The various deadlines for submission and review of reappointment, tenure and promotion materials were discussed. It was noted that one of the proposed deadlines falls on Labor Day, and should be changed. By committee approval, each reference to “Monday” in the proposed timeline distributed by Professor Martinez was changed to Tuesday Minor wording changes were approved (for clarity) to the section concerning proposed deadlines for fixed term faculty requests for reappointment.

One item discussed was the timeline for Deans to review PADs and send them to the Provost. After discussion, the consensus was that the proposed timelines did not allow Deans an adequate amount of time to review PADs. Hence, by committee approval, one week was added to the Deans’ timeline, taking one week away from the Provost’s and Vice Chancellor’s time for review. Vice Chancellor Horns and Provost Smith agreed that 4 or 5 weeks was sufficient time for them to review PADS and decisions. Speaking privileges were granted to Alan White, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, on this matter.

Professor Martinez will further revise the proposed revisions to Part XIII to the committee electronically, and the timeline will be presented as New Business at the February 20 Faculty Senate meeting.

III. The next discussion centered on Faculty Comprehensive Evaluation of Administrators, Appendix L.

Item 3 of the proposed changes to Appendix L was discussed. Bonatz suggested making specific reference to the UNC Code.

Some discussion centered on language in Item 3 as to whether the evaluation of administrators rested primarily with faculty or with a particular administrator’s superior, and what priority faculty should place on evaluating administrators. Following discussion, the committee approved language stating that evaluation of administrators was a primary responsibility of faculty, but not the primary responsibility of faculty.

Item 4 was discussed. No action was taken. A decision as to whether the review of all administrators will be evaluated on a four or five year basis will depend on how the review committees are elected/selected.

Item 5 was discussed with formal action taken.

IV. The 2006-07 Faculty Personnel Action Schedule for 9-Month Faculty (For Use in Spring 2007 Personnel Decisions) was discussed and approved.

V. A list of proposed editorial changes to Appendix D was distributed and approved.

Next committee meeting is Wednesday, February 28, 2007, in 142 Rawl Annex.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Jones, Professor