Faculty Governance Committee
Minutes of the Meeting
April 8, 2009
Members
Present: Purificacion, Martinez, Jan
Tovey, Marianna Walker, Catherine Rigsby, Marilyn Sheerer, Edson Justiniano,
Mary Gilliland, George Bailey, Ken Wilson
Others
Present: Linda Ingalls, Hope Murphy, Lori Lee
I. Excused absences – Phyllis Horns, Deirdre
Mageean, Mark Jones
II. Approval
of minutes – The minutes were not available for 2/25, and 3/25.
III. Review
of administrators – Puri Martinez discussed the nature of her statement to
the Faculty Senate (4/21) regarding the Review of Administrators document. She stated that she will formulate her
statement and send it to the Chancellor prior to the faculty senate meeting and
before she presents the document to the faculty senate.
Puri and Jan
stated that Puri and Jan met with the entire committee today and discussed
about the format and how the UPM should be vetted with the entire faculty. Puri
stated that the UPM committee was receptive and that the input from the faculty
is wanted and will be considered. Puri
shared her concerns with the committee that “Points 3 and 4 may need to be
changed. Puri reported that the UPM will be introduced as a draft and
suggestions will be solicited. There was
a recommendation that a special meeting will be held at the beginning of the
year to discuss the UPM draft. Puri has
volunteered to be a member of this committee.
Marianna
Walker asked whether any work be done this summer on the UPM. The response was
that the UPM draft will be sent out soon; therefore, Jan and Puri will work to
draft language for the UPM, which will be taken from the UNC Code instead of
ECU code. Jan and Puri stated that they will be looking to see if ECU Faculty
Manual language can be substituted. Discussion regarding the input of the
Faculty Senate is important and there will be an open meeting to discuss the
UPM.
Jan asked
Marilyn Sheerer if the Executive Council has reviewed the UPM document/draft
and Marilyn the council had reviewed the draft of the UPM. Puri asked Jan to
discuss to inform the faculty senate that this document (UPM) is just a draft
and the faculty will be involved.
Further discussion about the UPM continued relative to the
constituencies that needed to be involved with completion of this manual and
that there would be open forums for all constituencies involved. Jan informed the committee that the majority
of discussion, thus far, have not bee faculty related. Edson pointed out that
whatever is inserted in the UPM should not conflict with the Faculty Manual and
that best practices are working and should not be changed. Puri and Jan both
stated that this was communicated in the meeting.
Jan stated
that she is going to suggest that there is a Review Committee in addition to a
legal review for the UPM. Puri stated that this document has failed to
recognize that the Chancellor often gives charges to the faculty senate and
that resolutions often come back to the FS for revisions, etc.
Edson stated
that the UPM is complicated and that this type of policy should be reviewed at
many different levels. Jan stated that there should be a flow chart for
different policies.
George
Bailey stated that faculty manual is broken apart and that references on one
topic are contained in more than one area. We are dealing with steps in the
process.
Catherine
Rigsby stated that not all of the parts of the Faculty Manual have to go the GA
for approval, which is why the sections are different.
IV. Review
of the first draft of the annual report.
Puri
reviewed the first draft of the Annual Report containing 1) accomplishments, 2)
reports to the faculty senate, and 3) business carried over to next year
(including Appendix I). Regarding the section - Evaluation of the Committee,
Puri proposed that all members should be tenured.
Puri stated
that for the upcoming academic year, most of work of Faculty Governance will be
completed in subcommittees and so the committee could return to a meeting
monthly.
Following
completion of the items on the agenda, further discussion took place regarding
the demographic data on the increase/decrease of faculty and stipends, and
faculty workloads. The current faculty workload committee has consisted of Jan
Tovey, Marilyn Sheerer, Ruth Ann Cook, and Chris Locklear. George Bailey expressed concern regarding the
faculty workload document and whether the “individual” or the “unit” should
meet GA student credit hour production guidelines. Bailey stated that the unit
should meet the guideline and not individual, as expressed the draft document
for faculty workloads. The committee suggested that “student credit hour
production guidelines for their discipline”, as references in the document,
should be attached to the document. Marianna Walker suggested that clinical
teaching and patient care should be added to the document.
Respectfully
submitted,
Marianna
Walker, Ph.D., Secretary for the Day