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.
Marianna Walker, Ph.D., Secretary for the Day