Faculty Governance Committee

Minutes March 25, 2009


Members present:

Horns, Tovey, Wilson, Bailey, Rigsby, Jones, Martinez, Sheerer, Walker, Mageean, Gilliland


Members absent:



Others present:

Lori Lee, Hope Murphy, Linda Ingalls


I.  The minutes of previous meetings were approved.


II. Items Discussed:


  1. It was agreed that there was an editorial mistake in Appendix D that was approved by the committee earlier this year.  A line was inadvertently left out.  The committee agreed to put the line back in and accepted the addition as editorial.
  2. Discussion of the University Policy Manual.  The discussion focused around the question of who initiates the policies and which policies may be initiated by the Faculty Senate.  It was agreed that this needs to be worked out.


The timeline for this policy issue was discussed.  Nothing of significance will be done before April 6th.


The BOT has asked to meet with the faculty officers regarding why we need this policy manual.  The committee agreed that the officers need to info the governance committee about that conversation.  The committee instructed the officers to explain the of faculty (and governance Committee) participation in the creation of the policy manual (and academic policies, in general.


The Faculty Welfare Committee raised questions about why the Chancellor keeps sending committee policy changes that have been approved by the Faculty Senate back.  Provost Sheerer said that it is because the policies in questions are not faculty policies, but are instead administrative policies.  Discussion ensued regarding the need for open and transparent governance of all policies that involve faculty.  It was generally agreed that the formation of a new policy manual should be a long process that will involve faculty.  Nevertheless, the Provost said our process could be considerably shortened because we have the NCSU policy manual to use as a guide.  If we use the NCSU policy as a guide, the new policy manual will change which policies/suggestions can be initiated by the faculty.  Professor Tovey acknowledged that he role of the Faculty Senate has not be fully flushed out in the current draft document.


  1. Incorporating the concept of the Scholarship of Engagement into the Faculty Manual was discussed.  Two subcommittees will continue to work on this:  one will continue working on definitions for the various types of scholarship; the other will work on incorporating those definitions into the promotion and tenure sections of the Faculty Manual.


  1. Professor Tovey presented the new version of the guidelines for Review of Administrative Officers document.  This is not a Faculty Governance committee document.  The committee’s document was rejected by the Chancellor.  The current document was redone, Provost Sheerer with input from Tovey, to reflect the Chancellors issues with the committee document.  Professor Martinez will present the document to the Faculty Senate in April, but it will be presented for information and discussion only.  Martinez will send wording for the committee’s report to the Senate around so that the full committee can comment on that wording before the Senate meeting.


III. Other Business

  1. Professor Martinez brought up the fact that, because Chancellor Ballard rejected the Faculty Senate’s resolution about the use SIOS in faculty evaluations, all faculty are now in the position of needing to use these invalid survey results in their annual reports.  She requested that the Provost provide guidelines for ht faculty to use in preparing their annual reports.  The Provost will meet with Professor Tovey and David Weismiller next week to try to determine where to go from here.



Respectfully submitted,


Catherine A, Rigsby, Professor

Secretary Pro Tem