Meeting Minutes
University Policy Committee for
Faculty Affairs
Meeting Minutes: December 10, 2004
Present
Paul Jay, Chair, Isiaah Crawford, Joyce Knight, Chris
Manning, Ken Olsen, Hank Rose
Introductory Matters:
The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:05.
A call for approval of Minutes of 10/15/04 was approved unanimously.
The Chair reported that the membership on the committee held by Susan Jay is
now held by Beverly Kasper, School of Education.
General discussion led to agreement that substantive issues should not be
discussed by email, but only at the official meetings of the Committee
The Chair expressed his judgment that the Committee will need to meet more
often, perhaps monthly, in the near future.
Old Business:
Dismissal for Cause / Grievance Procedures: Chair reported an extensive
conversation he held yesterday with the President. Referring to his summary
of his research into procedures at other schools (distributed in advance of
this meeting), distinguishing them into Comprehensive Approach, using one
group for this whole array of concerns, and a Diversified Approach,
involving more than one body, the Chair reported the President's preference
for a Comprehensive Approach, involving a relatively large group (15-20
members), mostly elected, with small sub-groups assigned to specific issues
or cases.
Discussion of how the UPC should proceed with developing a policy in this
area led to general agreement that
It should be viewed as a revision/modification of the presently existing
operation of the Faculty Appeals Committee, rather than something de novo;
<li>It should involve widespread consultation, which should work through
existing structures (Deans / Chairs, to faculty), Faculty Council, etc.
<li>By way of background, the Committee should be provided with the Internal
Procedures currently used by the Faculty Appeals Committee. (Staff will
distribute these to the membership).
On the basis of this, the development of a draft will occupy attention at
the next meeting.
New Business:
Protocol on Endowed Chairs and Professorships. Members discussed the draft.
Resolved that the FA-UPC endorse the draft document.
Moved: Ken Olsen, Second, Joyce Knight. Approved unanimously.
Proposal regarding providing health care benefits to domestic partners.
Members discussed the proposal. It was clarified what is under
consideration is not a precise policy statement but rather a general
concept. The University Coordinating Committee is asking five different
bodies to express themselves on the concept, by way of providing guidance on
this matter.
Resolved that the FPA-UPC endorses in principle the adding of domestic
partners to university sponsored health insurance offerings.
Moved: Ken Olsen, Second: Isiaah Crawford. Approved unanimously.
Summer Teaching and Research Stipends. The member who had proposed the
topic clarified that teaching stipends were the initial focus of concern.
The Provost clarified that previous university-based policies, including
the incentive program offered during the last two summer, have been replaced
by an overall delegation of responsibility to the deans.
The Chair agreed to bring this item back in a future meeting.
The Provost reported on the results of the recent process of review for
summer research stipends and academic year paid or subvented research
leaves. In the case of summer stipends, approximately 43 of 70 proposals
were approved, and all were funded at the $4000 or $6000 or $8000 level.
This was possible because Academic Affairs' budget for this category was
raised from $90,000 last year to $180,000. An additional contribution by
deans, from their discretionary funds of $70,000 allowed for total support
in the amount of $250,000. Also, this year there is no prohibition from
teaching for the recipients of these stipends. That is, the funds are
understood not as "alternative summer employment money," but rather as
"research support." As long as the faculty member actually completes the
research described in the proposal, they will have fulfilled the contract.
In the case of academic year leaves, approximately 37 were approved, this
representing the entire pool of those judged worthy of funding by the
Faculty Development Review Committee. In response to a question, the
Provost reported that the new review process (created with the work of this
Committee last year) worked very well.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 AM.