Faculty Governance Committee

Minutes of the Meeting

December 3, 2008



Members Present: Marianna Walker, Jan Tovey, Catherine Rigsby, Phyllis Horns, Marilyn Sheerer, Edson Justiniano, Mary Gilliland, George Bailey, Mark Jones, Ken Wilson.


Others Present:  Linda Ingalls, Hope Murphy, Lori Lee, Chancellor Steve Ballard.


Edson Justiniano served as Chair of the Faculty Governance Committee due to Purificacion Martinez’s absence.


I.                     The minutes of the 10/27/2008 meeting were approved.

II.                   Appendix D – Section V.D.2. - Discussion occurred regarding the faculty advisor and the representatives for both the complainant and the respondant(s). See Section D-5 (2), Conduct of the Hearing.  Mark Jones recommended that someone should write up this section and send to the committee. Marianna Walker volunteered to edit the section “Conduct of the Hearing” and send to committee.


            Discussion of Appendix D – Section V. E, Procedures after Hearing. Hope Murphy advised the committee that this section was revised

to comply with BOG document re: “burden of proof” instead of “clear and convincing”, which is not in Code 604 D.


III.         Edson Justiniano welcomed Chancellor Ballard to the Faculty Governance Committee.


Initially, there was discussion with the Chancellor, regarding faculty senate resolutions. The committee members requested that if the Chancellor has concerns about a policy or document, that a dialogue take place regarding the particular issue.


Discussion between the Chancellor and committee member continued regarding “collegiality” vs. “professional misconduct”, as referenced in Appendix C.  The Chancellor asked the committee to review “professional misconduct” and how to incorporate this term into the faculty manual. The committee agreed to undertake this charge.


In reference to the review of administrators and the draft document from the Faculty Governance Committee, Chancellor Ballard stated

the following in his remarks to the Faculty Governance Committee.



In December 2007, the Board of Trustees approved what they wanted in the review of administrators. Afterwards, there was confusion

among the campus   community about what procedures to follow.  Since the approval of the BOT             policy, there have been 4 deans

hired with the BOT policy.


The BOT feels strongly about the approved policy and are unhappy that 18 months later there is still no final development on how input is gathered during the review process.  They see the overall review of administrators policy a done deal and that they blame him, the Chancellor, for the responsibility of resolving any issues relating to the University policy.  Chancellor Ballard stated that he has discussed this in detail with the BOT and stated that we are in an experimental time period of 30 months on the 5-year evaluation and shall treat this BOT policy as under development with suggestions for review going back to the BOT during the 2010-2011 academic year.  He stated that what he wishes from the Faculty Governance Committee is the best possible mechanism to gather faculty input into the 5-year review of administrators.  He stated that there was plenty of implementation in the current policy and that he felt the Committee’s draft document was too prescriptive. He wants the Committee’s proposed guidelines to be consistent with what is required by the Board of Governors and BOT policy. These guidelines would not be a part of the BOT policy and the authority to adhere to them would be given to each Vice Chancellor.


Professor Rigsby asked about his rejection of the actual direct quotes taken directly from the Board of Governors’ policies. She stated that the Committee had, in good faith, used the best practices given to them by Chancellor Ballard.  Chancellor Ballard stated that no one, including the faculty or administration could overwrite or change the BOT policy.  He reiterated that the BOT policy would be in force, with discussion and review considered during the  2010-2011 academic year.  If there are different ways to gather faculty input then he is open and willing to hear them. Chancellor Ballard then stated that he would like to see copies of the best practices forwarded to the committee for their use. 


Professor Tovey stated that she would provide copies for him and stated that she saw the Committee’s proposed guidelines to be broader than what was originally asked for.  It was binding administrators to specific review and not how to obtain faculty input for the review.


Chancellor Ballard stated that he suggested that the closer the person being reviewed was to faculty (i.e. unit chair) the more the faculty should be involved, but that there still needed to be some flexibility in the guidelines to allow the Dean and/or Vice Chancellor to suggest ways to gather more faculty input.  Again, he stated that this would not be a part of the BOT policy.


Professor Bailey stated that the BOT policy was specific that the names of interview candidates would go forward, but beyond that the BOT policy was fairly open and he was surprised that more options were not really closed off.  He stated that the BOT policy failed to address procedural issues and that the Committee saw this as fair ground.  He then asked Chancellor Ballard how formalized can the guidelines be written in regard to how faculty are chosen to play a role in the review of the administrators? How specific at what level is faculty participation useful i.e. would the evaluation of the unit chair should include a majority of the faculty in the unit?  At the VC level, would the participation be more broad?  In particular, how would non-unit code deans be evaluated (i.e. Arts and Sciences Dean)?  In the past, VC Smith thought that the unit-code deans should be evaluated and started this and now it has become the procedure.  Then Muse’s policy took that and stated that faculty played a role in the evaluation of those administrators, beginning at the first level and all the way up.


Regarding administrator hires, Chancellor Ballard stated that the BOT policy ensures that at least 3 names are presented to the VC from the search committee, which allows the VC to pick the most appropriate candidate.


The Chancellor furthered his discussion by stating that he does not want to have direct involvement in the evaluation of the deans, because he feels that that should be faculty.  But he does want more than just faculty involvement in evaluating those administrators higher up the chain of command.


Professor Bailey stated that in recommending faculty input at the dean level that the Committee’s guidelines could be less prescriptive by stating that faculty input will come from N  number faculty appointed in a particular way but not chosen by the administrator.


Provost Sheerer stated that Deans Niswander and Elwell have asked what process will be used for their 5-year administrative review.  She stated that she is going to use Muse’s process, which calls for a lot of faculty input.  She feels that this will not be going against the new BOT approved policy.


Professor Justiniano stated that the problems of the administrative review related to how the administrators in charge appointed/selected members for the review committee and that was what the Committee was trying to address.


Chancellor Ballard stated that his concern related to where the faculty came from and that they must come from the same dept/unit of the administrator. If a provost is being evaluated, then the make-up of the review committee would vary tremendously and that it should not be made up of a majority of faculty. He stated that he didn’t remember the particular procedure proposed for selecting faculty but agreed that, in relation to a department chair, the majority of the review committee should be faculty from that particular academic unit.  He would like to see less descriptive procedures because that leaves little flexibility for those forming the review committee. For example, if VC Mageean was being reviewed, he would not want to have guidelines that were so descriptive that faculty had to come from the Faculty Governance Committee, Faculty Senate, etc., but would want more faculty input from the particular research areas of the University who have direct contact with the administrator being reviewed. He stated that 25-50% of the review committee could be faculty (although closer to 25% of the total group faculty) and that the guidelines proposed to elicit faculty input can not be so overly constructive to limit the administrator compiling the review committee.  He stated that faculty must be included in the review committee and there are many ways to get faculty input without placing all of them on the review committee.


Professor Justiniano asked if the Chancellor would agree to allow a standing committee to appoint some faculty members to the review committee.  For example, if the Chancellor thought that, with this example, would he agree to a procedure that allowed some faculty appointments from the standing Committee on Committees through the Faculty Senate, who would be charged with appointing a fixed number of those faculty selected from the various research departments. Chancellor Ballad responded that he thought that was still too prescriptive and he thought the review works better to have a couple of different nominating processes to obtain faculty input, then allow the VC overseeing the review to have the flexibility to appoint the faculty members as he or she sees fit.  He stated that he would support a sound mechanism for faculty input from various areas involved in the review and not just selected from a small body of faculty.


Professor Rigsby stated that the Committee’s goal was to come up with a procedure that provided a broader faculty voice, no matter what high level administrative position was being evaluated and that having the Faculty Senate be involved in the appointment process allows for a broader view of the process and provides the opportunity for a larger body to play a role in obtaining faculty input.


Chancellor Ballard responded that he did not think that having a broader point of view was only attainable through a strict prescribed manner. He thanked the Committee again for their hard work on this and appreciated their collective efforts on drafting guidelines that work the best for all involved.  He reminded the Committee that there was still testing left to do with the BOT policy that he feels is currently working and that he looked forward to working with the committee on this during the 2010-2011 academic year.



Respectfully submitted,


Marianna Walker