FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF MARCH
28, 2006
A special
called meeting of the 2005-2006
Agenda Item
I. Call to Order
Catherine
Rigsby (Geology), Chair of the Faculty, called the meeting to order at 2:10
p.m.
Agenda Item
II. Roll Call
Senators
absent were: Professors Kim (Art), Allen (Chemistry), Ross (Criminal Justice),
Brown (Education), Deena (English), Dobbs and Schenarts (Medicine), Glascoff
(Health and Human Performance), and Chancellor Ballard.
Alternates
present were: Professors Walker for Culbertson (Allied Health Sciences), Wolfe
for Avenarius (Anthropology), Rhodes for Schisler (Business), Felts for Estes
(Health and Human Performance), Boklage for Levine (Medicine), Butler for
Morris (Political Science), Coddington for Tabrizi (Technology and Computer
Science), Parker for Funaro (Theatre and Dance), and Cope for Brown
(Psychology).
Agenda Item
III. Unfinished Business
Chairperson
Rigsby stated the attendance of the faculty senate illustrated how important
the work we are doing is and let the work continue. She then read the amendment, which was being
discussed at the previous meeting.
Faculty
Governance Committee
Puri Martinez
(Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, began the
discussion on the proposed revisions to Appendix D. of the ECU Faculty Manual, with reference to Professor Winstead’ (Academic
Library Services) motion to revise Section IV.A.1.c.10 to read: “The personnel committee may
elect a search committee as prescribed by the unit’s code to fulfill the responsibilities
of soliciting and screening applicants and recommending to the unit’s Personnel
Committee candidates for initial appointments. Search committees should consist
of a majority of voting faculty.”
Robinson (Math) moved
to add at the end of Professor Winstead’s new sentence “Only tenure and tenure
track faculty shall participate on search committees for tenure and tenure
track positions.” The motion failed
due to the lack of a second and discussion continued on original amendment.
Boklage (Medicine)
stated that he wanted clarification of the amendment, asking do you need more
than half of the voting faculty?
Chairperson Rigsby stated that half of the committee needed to be voting
faculty.
Wilson (Sociology)
moved a friendly amendment to change “should” to “must” so that the sentence
would read “Search
committees must consist of a majority of voting faculty.” The amendment was accepted. Sprague (Physics) moved to further amend the
motion to read “A majority of the search committee must be voting
faculty.” Wilson stated that this was
much clearer.
Martinez
(Foreign Language) stated that when they were working on this section it was
the intention that the candidates would be judged by people who already had the
credentials of those being searched.
This was the original reasoning.
However, they realize some situations could be complicated.
Justiniano
(Physics), member of the Faculty Governance Committee, stated that staff
members on search committees should serve as a research person only and have no
vote.
Robinson
(Math) stated that a search committee must be prepared to judge qualifications
very carefully. They must do right by
the unit and by the candidate. They need
to be judged by those with the proper credentials. This current amendment allows too open a
selection on search committees. Unit
administrative assistants are simple not qualified to judge tenured full
professors’ positions. This is codified
in tenure and promotion procedures that only those with that rank should vote
on that rank. It is important that we
compose search committees with no question as to the qualifications of the
members to vote. He offered a substitute
motion to read “Only tenure-track and tenured faculty may serve on search
committees for tenure-track and tenure positions. However, if the unit code permits, other
faculty and staff may serve on search committees as ex-officio members without
vote.”
Boklage
(Medicine) stated that he would like to simplify the text and offered a substitute
motion to read “Voting members of search committees must be at or above the
minimum academic rank of the position being recruited.” Martinez stated that this is the first step
in a personnel action and they should be structured that way. The substitute motion failed due to the lack
of a second.
Sprague
(Physics) speaking to Professor Robinson’s motion asked for a clarification of
what a voting faculty member was.
Martinez (Foreign Language) clarified what the Faculty Governance
Committee was proposing and stated that the current motion on the floor was
eliminating “voting” faculty as a criteria and replacing it with a majority of
voting faculty. McMillen (Medicine)
spoke against the motion stating that there may be a misuse of the way
“ex-officio members” are being used and that the Senate should trust units to
form search committees correctly.
At this
point Chairperson Rigsby reread the original amendment again and Robinson’s
amendment to it. She stated that we were
discussing the Robinson amendment and that is what was being voted on.
Following
discussion, the substitute motion that read “Only tenure-track and tenured
faculty may serve on search committees for tenure-track and tenure
positions. However, if the unit code
permits, other faculty and staff may serve on search committees as ex-officio
members without vote.” failed.
Sprague (Physics)
spoke to his earlier substitute motion to revise Section IV.A.1.c.10 to read: “The personnel committee
may elect a search committee as prescribed by the unit’s code to fulfill the
responsibilities of soliciting and screening applicants and recommending to the
unit’s Personnel Committee candidates for initial appointments. A majority of
the search committee must be voting faculty.”
Following brief discussion, the substitute motion passed. Chairperson
Rigsby reread the original amendment offered by Winstead.
Given
(Foreign Languages) asked for clarification that search committees are a
sub-committee of the personnel committee.
Sprague
(Physics) stated that “voting faculty” should be clarified once the Fixed Term
Faculty Task Force completes its work and spoke against his earlier substitute
motion. Martinez (Foreign Language) stated that as written now, the text leaves
search committees open to any unit employee involvement and is much broader now
than originally proposed.
Long (History) asked
what was the expected date of the Fixed Term Faculty Task Force’s report. Provost Smith noted that a draft report would
be presented to the Faculty Senate on April 18 with something more formal being
forwarded to the Faculty Governance Committee next fall.
Wilson (Sociology)
spoke in favor of Sprague’s earlier substitute motion stating that it was best
to move forward instead of waiting until the Task Force reports. Rose (Nursing) stated that there was no
consensus among the group and moved to table the discussion on Section IV.A.1.c.10 until we have the
report from the Task Force. The motion to table failed.
Winstead
(Academic Library Services) stated that only the libraries at Appalachian State
and ECU employ faculty librarians. Given
(Foreign Language) moved to amend Section IV.A.1.c.10 to include after
“The personnel committee may elect a search committee as prescribed by the
unit’s code” the following text: “or, including voting faculty from other
unit”. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Sprague (Physics) moved to strike from Section IV.A.3.a the
sentence that reads: “The
unit administrator, in consultation with the unit Tenure Committee (or properly
constituted subcommittee), will write a progress toward tenure letter to each
probationary term faculty member as described in Section II.C.4.” due to its
redundancy with additional roles noted later in the text. The motion passed.
McMillen
(Medicine) moved to make the language consistent with the newly approved Part
XII. Personnel Action Dossier by revising to Section IV.A.3.c.4. to read
“Prepares a cumulative evaluation in narrative form of the candidate’s
teaching, research, service, and any other relevant duties.” The motion passed.
Robinson
(Math) moved to revise the last two paragraphs in Section IV.B. to read: “In
personnel matters, the unit administrator functions as an administrator rather
than a faculty member. Consequently, the
unit administrator does not have a faculty vote in personnel matters.
Therefore, unit administrators are excluded from all unit committee
deliberations concerning candidates for appointment, reappointment, promotion,
or permanent tenure (for procedure for nonconcurring recommendations, see
Appendix D. Part IV.H.). However, at the
invitation by a majority vote of the membership of the Personnel Committee, a
unit administrator may meet with the committee to discuss initial appointments. Further, the administrator may meet with the
Tenure Committee (or properly constituted subcommittee) in reference to
progress toward tenure letters as noted in Section II.C.4.”
Long
(History) asked what this change would do.
Rigsby stated it would give clarification and make it consistent with
“Robert Rules of Order”
Sprague
(Physics) asked what is the affect of adopting this amendment and why do we
have to be consistent with “Robert Rules of Order”. Robinson (Math) responded that it is up to
the Personnel Committee to decide when and where a Unit Administrator can be in
on a discussion. The amendment would
make this quite clear. Martinez noted that
the original language is more restrictive and the proposed amendment. The change would allow for more collaboration
between Unit Administrators and the Personnel Committee. Provost Smith noted that we are at a very
important moment here. Unit Administrators
should not be invited but should be required.
How do we require collegiality?
The interchange between the Unit Administrator and the Personnel
Committee should be on record. This
would satisfy a lot of Chairs and Deans.
Today, if we look at “Robert Rules of Order”, our codes should not
replace “Robert Rules” but should be in consistency with “Robert Rules”. The Committee should require the invitation.
Long
(History) spoke against the motion stating that it is the committee’s
responsibility to protect the rights of faculty when they come up for vote on
important personnel issues and that by having the unit administrator involved
was wrong. If the unit administrator was
present when the vote was taken, some faculty members may be influenced and
that it was wrong. Tovey (English) spoke
in favor of the amendment. Martinez
stated that we must preserve independence of deliberations and the vote of
faculty actions.
Niswander (Business)
spoke in favor of the motion stating that this amendment increases the
communication among administrators and faculty and prevents little conversations
among parties. He stated that there was a risk that a faculty member may be
influenced by a unit code administrator but that could happen anywhere, not
just in a formal meeting. Robinson
(Math) stated that when the Unit Administrator must meet is covered in Appendix
C. This amendment would provide a way
for the Unit Administrator to inform the tenure and promotion committee. He feels that some of Provost Smith’s concerns
are already covered by the Faculty Manual.
Faculty Administration and Boards are required to have very different
roles and responsibilities, and these are covered by SACS. These roles must be delineated. The amendment will handle both of these issues.
Wilson (Sociology)
spoke in favor of the motion and stated that it allows more flexibility in
organizing how things are done. He
reminded Senators that this amendment does not require unit administrators to
be present. Warren (Education) spoke in favor of the motion as the tenure and promotion
committee never really has the opportunity to speak with the unit administrator
when there is a problem in the discussions.
Sprague (Physics) also spoke in favor of the motion. Taggart (Music)
stated that he supported the motion because we all need to be continuously
reminded of the dual track system. This
language gives the feel of collaboration.
Holloway (Business)
spoke against the motion seeking clarification on the committee discussion with
the unit administrator. He stated that
the meeting with the unit administrator should not be outcome oriented and
questioned if there would be minutes of the discussions. Long (History) again
reiterated his opposition to the motion stating that it can be a single vote
that can decide whether someone gets promotion or tenure and this person could
be influenced by the unit administrator.
He sees no reason why a unit administrator should be part of the
discussion. Why would the committee need
to know how the unit administrator would act on the next level? This knowledge could truly affect the
outcome. He asks that the faculty take
this into consideration when voting on this issue.
Sprague (Physics)
responded to Long’s concern on how a unit administrator could give information,
which may influence the outcome.
Boklage (Medicine
spoke in favor of the amendment.
Gilliland (Medicine)
spoke for the amendment stating that is answers a concern that we are becoming
adversarial. Others have had good
experiences with unit administrators and they can give valuable information to
the committee.
Justiniano stated
that decisions of promotion and tenure are made on the PAD. Therefore, information from the unit
administrator could be hearsay. He asked
that this be kept in mind when making this decision. Yalcin (Philosophy) stated
that we are trying to make a decision here.
Some communication can be good and some can be propaganda. How will this be decided?
Given (Foreign
Language) spoke in favor of the motion stating that communication is
two-way. Wolfe (Anthropology) asked does
this amendment speak to tenure decisions as well as initial appointments.
Christian (Business)
spoke against the motion as he feels the unit administrator gets to have their
say. Martinez warned that the next Chair
of the Faculty’s interpretation of this is going to be key. The amendment does not say that a meeting has
to happen. It only says that the unit
administrator can not be part of the deliberations. Chairperson Rigsby stated that we must be
clear. The amendment does say that the
unit administrators are excluded from the committee deliberations but allows
for other discussions.
Taggart (Music) spoke
in favor of the motion stating that it reinforces the concept of shared
governance and that the personnel action dossier is what should be used to
evaluate faculty, not what the unit administrator states in a meeting. Lamson (Child Development and Family
Relations) spoke in favor of the motion due to its transparency.
Horst (Music) spoke
against the motion and wants to stay with the original wording. Holloway (Business) stated that this motion
does not control the outcome and that he will not surrender his rights as a
faculty member. Wolfe (Anthropology) stated that he was still confused by the
meaning. Is this for initial appointments?
Warren (Education)
spoke in favor of the motion stating that it increased communication and
openness. He stated that he had
confidence in his colleagues that they would vote independently even if the
unit administrator had spoken to the committee.
He wants the discussion on the record.
Wang (Geography) stated that he did not understand the intent of the
motion. Martinez agreed with Wolfe that
she was puzzled. It does not say that
there is a meeting before the tenure and promotion committee meeting so what
are we discussing. Chairperson Rigsby
clarified what the amendment was saying that unit administrators are excluded
from all the deliberations but the committee may allow administrators to meet
with them. It does not say you have to
invite them. “Robert Rules of Order”
strongly recommends that they be invited but they do not have to. Wilson (Sociology) clarified what the terms
“discussion” and “deliberation” meant.
McMillen (Medicine)
called the question. The motion to revise the last two paragraphs in Section
IV.B. to read: “In personnel matters, the unit administrator functions as an
administrator rather than a faculty member.
Consequently, the unit administrator does not have a faculty vote in
personnel matters. Therefore, unit administrators are excluded from all unit
committee deliberations concerning candidates for appointment, reappointment,
promotion, or permanent tenure (for procedure for nonconcurring
recommendations, see Appendix D. Part IV.H.).
However, at the invitation by a majority vote of the membership of the
Personnel Committee, a unit administrator may meet with the committee to
discuss initial appointments. Further,
the administrator may meet with the Tenure Committee (or properly constituted subcommittee)
in reference to progress toward tenure letters as noted in Section II.C.4.” was
approved as presented.
Given
(Foreign Language) moved to revise the paragraph above the one earlier
discussed in Section IV.B. to include “in narrative form” so that the sentence
reads: ”The unit administrator prepares a cumulative evaluation in narrative
form of the candidate’s teaching, research, service, and any other relevant
duties.”
Wang
(Geography) offered a friendly amendment to change “evaluation” to
“summary”. Martinez stated that it was
very important that this be a narrative.
Justiniano spoke against the amendment as it will not be consistent with
part 12. Wolfe (Anthropology) stated
that summary does not mean that it would have to be a pointed summary. Stapleton (Education) spoke against the
friendly amendment, stating that it should be an evaluation, not just a
summary. Sprague (Physics) called the
question. The friendly amendment to
change “evaluation” to “summary” failed.
Following
discussion on the proposed amendment to Section IV.B. to read”The unit
administrator prepares a cumulative evaluation in narrative form of the
candidate’s teaching, research, service, and any other relevant duties.” the motion passed.
Wilson
(Sociology) moved to amend Section IV.E.1. (2nd paragraph) to read:
“A quorum is defined as three quarters of the membership for a committee that
has twenty or fewer members; and a quorum is defined as two third of the
membership for a committee that has more than twenty members. A list of all committee members who were
absent during a vote on a personnel action will be forwarded with the
recommendation. The committee may develop policies to designate certain
absences as excused absences. Absences
should be considered in annual evaluations.”
McMillen
(Medicine) stated that changing the quorum may make it hard for various large
departments to do its work. Martinez (Foreign Language) stated that a 50 plus 1
majority was based on information given by the School of Medicine. This was the best that could be hoped
for. This was the reason for the change.
Gilliland
(Medicine) stated that an absence should be considered an excused absence if
the faculty member was in clinic.
Chair
Rigsby announced that the body had lost its quorum and that discussion will
continue on this motion at the next scheduled Faculty Senate meeting.
The meeting
adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Christine
Zoller Lori
Lee
Secretary
of the Faculty Administrative
Officer
School of
Art and Design
Please
note:
Discussion
on proposed revisions to Appendix D on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, will
begin with the proposed amendment (proposed by Professor Wilson) as follows:
“Amend Section IV.E.1. (2nd paragraph)
to read: “A quorum is defined as three quarters of the membership for a
committee that has twenty or fewer members; and a quorum is defined as two
third of the membership for a committee that has more than twenty members. A list of all committee members who were
absent during a vote on a personnel action will be forwarded with the
recommendation. The committee may develop policies to designate certain
absences as excused absences. Absences
should be considered in annual evaluations.”