Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2003
2003-2004: No. 1
Members Present: Dr. Paul Jay (Chair), Dr. Louis Cain, Dr. Isiaah Crawford, Dr. Lydia don Carlos, Dr. Christopher Manning, Mr. Henry Rose, Ms. Joyce Knight, Dr. Robert Mittendorf.
Members Absent: Dr. Anthony Barbatos.
I. Review of Minutes from May 19 Meeting: The Committee reviewed the minutes from the May 19, 2003 meeting. It was noted that the decision for the Faculty Development Committee to meet more than once a year was not included in the minutes. A clarification was made that indeed the change had been noted gone into effect. The minutes were unanimously (9-0-0) approved.
II. Introductory Remarks: The Provost opened by introducing important changes in policy and procedure for the new year. He illustrated the new web-based voting system for Faculty Committees and introduced the new Chairs of the FDC and RTC. Guidelines for the voting process were outlined, and the importance of following the Presidential policy was stressed.
An interpretation regarding the Graduate School's Rank & Tenure Review policy was raised, questioning whether the voting structure resulted in redundancy, as presently faculty members teaching both graduate and undergraduate courses are reviewed by committees in both departments. The options were proposed to either 1) allow the redundancy to remain or 2) limit the Graduate School Committee to review those faculty only teaching in the Graduate School. The decision was made to discuss the options with the Dean of the Graduate School and convey to him the Committee's questions.
- Review and Approval of CAS Rank & Tenure Committee Procedures:
- Review and Approval of Law School Rank & Tenure Review Committees Procedures and Guidelines.
The Committee reviewed the CAS proposal and discussed questions regarding it. A discrepancy was raised as to whether abstentions should be allowed, and the clarification was made between abstentions and recusals, the latter arising when there is a conflict of interest. The general agreement of the Committee is that abstentions not be allowed in the College of Arts & Sciences, specifically when they are the result of indecision.
The Committee then discussed the policy on requesting external facts when deciding Rank and Tenure. Clarifications were suggested regarding who might make a request of an outside source for facts, and it was pointed out that it is inappropriate for an individual member of the Committee to make such a request as this violates the privacy of the candidate. It was decided that all requests must be made by the Committee as a whole. There was some discussion about what would constitute a "fact." It was agreed that this will have to be determined by the Dean and the Committee on a case-by-case basis.
The Committee voted to approve (6-2-1) the proposal, but it was noted that the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences should clarify with the Committee the basis upon which it can proceed to gather its own facts from external sources.
IV. Faculty Development Leave of Absence Program:
At this time the Chair proposed a change of agenda in light of the necessity for a timely decision regarding the Summer Research Stipend Program, noting the deadline was approaching for requests. The policy disallowing faculty to both teach and receive a Summer Stipend was reviewed, and a change was suggested. It was noted that faculty should have sufficient time to do both, citing the creation of the Maymester which results in more time during the summer. In addition, it was suggested that approval of summer stipend requests be granted on a per-month basis rather than being restricted to the entire summer.
In an attempt to approve the new policy, the suggestion was made to utilize the new electronic polling system regarding a change in policy. It was unanimously agreed that the entire faculty should have the ability to give input on this matter, as it affects them all.
The Committee discussed the Guidelines put forth by he Dean of the School of Law, and noted that the vote of the member of the Committee who writes the report would no longer be secret. The Committee then unanimously (9-0-0) voted to approve the document.
V. Faculty Titles and Contracts Document Review
The Committee began by discussing its role with respect to this document, determining that during review it should "flag" issues of concern and communicate them to the Provost.
The first issue that arose involved the definition of part time faculty status. Specifically, the wording "The most common type of academic year part time faculty appointment is for six courses" was determined to be problematic, since it seemed to raise the usual number of courses for part time faculty from two per semester to three per semester. Concerns were expressed about the legal and ethical implications of allowing part time teachers to carry heavier teaching loads than many full-time tenured professors.
Next, it was brought to the Committees attention that annual contracts cover only the academic year, but assume an appointment for the entire fiscal year. Clarity was requested surrounding the contract length, specifically whether the summer is included. Further, the suggestion was made that the language be changed from contracts to "contractual letters" for legal reasons.
The Committee then discussed policy regarding outside employment, especially consulting work. It was suggested that the wording is vague in respect to consulting time, as it could be interpreted that faculty could take 20% of their time each week off in order to consult. It was decided that the policy is consistent with the past and need not be changed, especially since all consulting jobs must be approved by the Dean or Dean and Provost.
Next, the Committee discussed the possibility for paid leaves of absence for non- tenure track faculty members. Discussion centered on whether this policy might result in unnecessary competition for tenure tack faculty regarding research leaves, as research is a requirement for tenure. It was noted, however that leaves are also granted for teaching and curriculum development and that non- tenure track faculty research leaves could definitely contribute to the university, specifically those of clinical faculty. Further, it was noted that the increase in competition is healthy for the university and could possibly result in a higher quality of research.
Various other minor changes to the language of the document for the sake of clarification were suggested and noted by the Chair.
It was then decided that the Committee would not at this time formally approve the document and that the faculty should be involved in the review of the document. It was then decided that a web-posting of the document would be sufficient for faculty approval.
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Mr. Steve Eck