Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2004
2003-2004: No. 4
Members Present: Dr. Paul Jay (Chair), Dr. Anthony Barbato, Dr. Louis Cain, Dr. Isiaah Crawford, Dr. Lydia don Carlos, Ms. Joyce Knight, Dr. Christopher Manning, Dr. Robert Mittendorf, Mr. Henry Rose.
Members Absent: None.
I. Review of Minutes from December 1, 2003 Meeting:
The Committee reviewed the minutes from the December 1, 2003 meeting. After an editorial correction to the first paragraph of the second page, the minutes were unanimously approved (9-0-0).
II. Faculty Appointments, Titles, and Contracts Document: Final Revisions
The Committee reviewed the Faculty Appointments, Titles, and Contracts Document in order to approve the changes circulated earlier by the Provost. A question was raised about the rights and duties of professors emeriti. The Provost shared his draft statement of "Privileges, Opportunities, Compensation, Faculty Title and Benefits" for professors emeriti. The committee found the statement to be in good order, although concern was expressed by Dr. Barbato about the availability of office space at SSOM for professors emeriti. It was agreed that the language of the document was sufficiently flexible on this point and that the language did not need to be changed.
The Committee then turned to the problems and suggestions put forth in the last meeting. A question was raised about the statement that "the most common type of academic year part-time faculty appointment is for six courses over the academic year..." (p 1). The committee agreed to drop the phrase "most common" and amend the statement to say that "Part-Time faculty appointments are for up to six courses... over the academic year..." (p 1). A question was then raised regarding outside employment versus professional consulting, and how this is reported and determined. The phrase "typically income as an employee is reported on an IRS W-2 tax form," was thought by some to be potentially confusing. However, it was determined that because all professional consultant requests need Dean and Provost approval, and that the use of "typically" allows for consultants with W-2's to be exempt, that this issue required no further modification.
The Committee then agreed that they were comfortable with the present document if the above minor changes were made.
III. Annual Faculty Contract Letter
The Committee then discussed the wording for the Faculty Contract letter. There was concern over the new policy of requiring Full Time tenured faculty to sign a contract letter each year. Agreement developed that Full Time tenured faculty would not be specifically required to sign the letters, It was then determined that, with this in mind, the Provost and Chair of the Committee would work on the wording together, then bring it to the Committee once more, if necessary.
IV. Grievance Committee
The Committee turned its focus to the Interim Procedure for Grievances in order to determine a permanent policy. During the discussion various options were considered, including incorporating a single procedure for appeals and grievances, solving all grievances at the school or department level, reviving the past role of the ombudsman, or implementing the interim grievance procedure as permanent. The first option was found to be undesirable as appeals and grievances tend to have a different nature, appeals focusing more on specific decisions while grievances involve more general problems related to the fairness of working conditions. Further, the appeals process applies to both faculty and staff, while the grievance process is for faculty only, and the specificity of appeals requires that the process be "unfettered" by general grievances. The Committee also determined that a school/department level grievance committee or policy would not be adequate, despite the fact that most grievances have been handled at that level, because many are interpersonal disputes and hence require an external body to arbitrate. The past practice of naming a standing ombudsman was also turned down because the relatively small number of grievances which would result in little work for that position. The implementation of a standing committee was also declined for this reason.
The Committee agreed that any grievance procedure should begin at the school and department level, and it should be separate from the appeals process. The proposal was then put forth to adopt the interim procedure as permanent, striking the word "interim" from the title. However, as it had been circulated at a much earlier date and many of the members were not familiar with it, the decision was made to review the document and vote on it at the next meeting. Further, it was decided that the Faculty Council should be informed of this plan in case it would have input.
V. Criteria for Dismissal
The Committee reviewed the criteria for dismissal of faculty in order to determine whether it needed revision or clarification. This question was referred to the committee by the now-abolished Committee on Faculty Appointments. CFA worried that the term "grave misconduct" as criteria for dismissal in the current Faculty Handbook might be overly vague. It was pointed out that a statement regarding dismissal could not list all possible grounds. The Committee determined that the present language about dismissal for cause in the Faculty Handbook was adequate. A question was raised about which faculty committee would review recommendations for dismissal, now that the CFA is no longer in existence. The Provost offered to review the new governance charter to see what it had to say on this matter.
The following text from the CFA meeting was circulated by the Provost after the Committee meeting and was intended to clarify the above-mentioned question:
Former CFA responsibilities"1. [continued]...to review and recommend policies...suspension, non-renewal, and dismissal: 2. [continued]...to recommend actions regarding...suspension, non-renewal, and dismissal of full time faculty."New Faculty Affairs UPC responsibilities: "5) review and recommend policies that ensure the fairness and efficiency of university judicial procedures for faculty;"
Other Committees or Individuals: "The Vice President for Health Sciences or the Provost, on the recommendation of the dean of the school or college, shall be responsible for disciplinary actions, including warnings, reprimands, salary reductions, suspensions, or dismissal (non-renewal of a continuing contract). The faculty member affected shall have the right to appeal to the President. The President, at his discretion, may refer the matter to the Faculty Appeal Committee. In cases involving dismissal for cause, or involving allegations of illegal discrimination, or allegations of violations of academic freedom the President will refer the matter to the Faculty Appeals Committee."
This text was acquired from: www.luc.edu/governance/addendum2.shtml
VI. Noreen Facione's Proposal re Research Day
As Director of the Center for Faculty Professional Development, Dr. Facione requested that the Committee consider a proposal to change university policy to include a specific day to be reserved throughout the university as a weekly research day. This proposal suggested that one day be set aside in which faculty members would be able to pursue their research free from departmental or university meetings. Reviewing this proposal, the Committee determined the spirit and intention to be excellent. However, in view of the difficulties that already exist in scheduling committee meetings the Committee determined that the proposal was not feasible.VII. New Business
A. Equity Salary Fund Dispersal
Questions and concerns arose within the Committee around the previous discussions on the equity dispersal decisions. Specifically, clarification was desired regarding the factors intended for use in determining how this dispersal was to be carried out. The Committee expressed concern that the equity adjustment not override annual merit increases, and that it be dispersed based on need rather than uniformly to all.
The Committee was then reminded that it had previously determined the policy for the dispersal, and it was now the duty of the Provost and President to arrange its implementation. In order to ensure that the policy which is to be carried out reflects the one which the Committee suggested, it requested that once the policy is created and finalized, it be reviewed by the Committee before being announced.
B. Communication to Applicant of Decisions on Promotion and Tenure
Concern was expressed that in most cases a candidate for promotion and/or tenure is only informed of the final decision, and if the candidate was updated at each level, he or she could provide more information for the application. Further, it was suggested that it is necessary for some candidates to know of the probable decision early in order to prepare to enter the job market. It was then noted that at present in the College of Arts and Sciences that candidates are informed of the departmental recommendation. However, the CAS Rank and Tenure Committee decisions are not relayed.
Before determining to continue the discussion at a later meeting, the Committee took notice of the following statement on p.24 of the Faculty Handbook:
In any case, a faculty member should be informed of the recommendation made at each level of review at the time the recommendation is sent forward to the Committee on Faculty Appointments. [now the University Rank and Tenure Committee]It was determined that further discussion was needed as to whether this information be given to the candidate at the time it is made.
The meeting was adjourned unanimously (8-0-0) at 4:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Mr. Steve Eck