The NGCSU Faculty Senate met on Thursday, October 12, 2000.  The Senate was called to order by CEO Woods at 12:32 PM.  The following members of the Senate were in attendance:  President Hansford, VPAA Buckhiester, M. Anthony, T. Barnett, P. Bielic, N. Campbell, C. Chastain, D. Cronic, L. Delargy, B. Friedman, S. Gannaway, B. Herbert, J. Jones, I. Kokkala, R. Larkin, E. Link, V. McCard, H. Margeson, B. Morris, J. O'Neal, H. Richard, K. Sisk, T. Temples, C. Weinberg, M. Westerfield, S. Wiedmann, S. Williams, J. Woods, and J. Yeoman.  Guests in attendance were Dr. Linda Roberts-Betsch, and Dr. Arlene Thurman.  Senators Biddy, W. Morris, and M. Spraker were absent.

Minutes of the September 14, 2000, Meeting

The minutes of the September 14, 2000, meeting of the Senate were submitted for approval by CEO Woods.  He called for any corrections or additions.  There were none.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes as submitted.  The motion carried.

The President's Report

President Hansford informed the Senators that they would be receiving a brochure and cover letter within the next few days concerning the new PPO health plan along with changes in the current Indemnity Plan.  This information will also contain the dates and times of presentations which will be made concerning both plans.  He explained that members of the faculty may attend any of the presentations; the same information will be presented.  The presentations will involve a short video and slide presentation along with a question and answer period.  President Hansford reminded the Senate that faculty members have until November 16th to make a decision regarding the health care coverage.  He also reminded them that, if a faculty member does not indicate a choice, the faculty member will automatically be placed under the new PPO plan.  President Hansford also asked that, if faculty members feel they are not receiving sufficient information regarding the health care plans, that they please let him know.

The President next addressed the subject of the university's Campus Master Plan.  NGCSU was the first university within the USG to complete such a plan.  Further, no construction project can be approved or funded by the BOR unless it is a part of the Master Plan.  NGCSU has already been funded for two major construction projects and is close to approval for the proposed, new dorm.  There have, however, been some minor changes made in the Master Plan.  The location of the proposed, new dorm has shifted slightly at the recommendation of the architects.  The new Health and Natural Sciences building has also been situated slightly differently.  President Hansford went on to explain that a large tract of land, owned by the university, located above the ball field on Radar Ridge was not taken into consideration when the Master Plan was drawn up.  Consequently, the university is having an architect look at the area and preparing an estimate regarding what it would cost to change the Master Plan.

President Hansford pointed out to the Senate that a new organization, the NGCSU Parents' Association, had just been established this year and is just "getting off the ground."  He went on to inform the Senate that the organization wants to have a Parents' Day on October 27th and/or 28th.  These dates coincide with the first Visitation weekend of the current academic year.  Most of the activities being scheduled as part of Parents' Day are those already scheduled as part of Visitation.  There is, however, one addition.  The NGCSU Parents' Association wants to institute classroom visits on the part of parents.  Students are to clear such visits with their professors in advance.  Senator Wiedmann pointed out that some sections and classes are filled to capacity and would not allow for any visiting parent to have a place to sit.  She asked what President Hansford advised in such a situation.  President Hansford recommended that the faculty member explain to the student that there would simply be no room for a visiting parent in such a case.

In closing, the President announced to the Senate that, largely through the efforts of Charles Olson and Dr. Judith Bryant, the university is now offering a student health plan for the first time.

CEO's Report

CEO Woods announced that permanent Chairs had been elected for almost all Standing Committees.  Any Standing Committees that have not yet elected chairpersons or which have not yet informed the CEO of the elections are asked to do so.

CEO Woods went on to announce that the local White Christmas Campaign is now underway.  Any faculty member, department or group interested in participating should bear in mind that the deadline for participation is December 3, 2000.  CEO Woods was asked to explain the nature of the White Christmas Campaign.  Dr. Arlene Thurman, who has been active in the program for a number of years, explained that participants contact DFACS and receive a description of a needy child or children.  The participant then buys Christmas gifts for the child/children and deliver them to DFACS which delivers them to the child/children.  CEO Woods has the necessary contact information for anyone wishing to take part in the campaign.

Unfinished Business

Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee

CEO Woods reminded the Senators that Recommendation #1 had already been approved by the Senate.  Recommendation #2 was then reviewed.  The recommendation read as follows:

Disburse a percentage of merit raise money equally amongst all faculty who meet the minimum-expected threshold.  Further, those faculty members exceeding the minimum threshold would receive the balance of the merit raise money.  Finally, those faculty members not meeting the minimum threshold would receive none of the merit raise money.

VPAA Buskhiester then pointed out that such equal percentage raises might not, and likely would not, work out to be identical with the percentage of merit raise money set aside for the minimum-expectations group as a whole.  He moved that the recommendation be amended to read as follows:

Disburse a percentage of merit raise money as an equal percentage of salary amongst all faculty who meet the minimum-expected threshold.  [changes in bold]

Senator Weinberg raised a question regarding how the recommendation was an improvement over the current system.  Senator Wiedmann voiced concerns raised by some of her constituents.  These concerns involved the fact that, if there is a significant difference between the standards defined as the "minimum-expected threshold" and the standard defined as "exceeds expectations," then a faculty member could improve in performance one year to the next yet not receive any monetary recognition for the improved performance.  On the other hand, if the difference in standards between "minimum-expected threshold" and "exceeds expectations" is not significant, then we run the risk of embedding mediocrity within the system.  Senator Friedman pointed out that it is expected that a faculty member's evaluation results will vary from year to year depending on their focus, e.g., a focus on publishing one year, greater university service the next, etc.  Senator Wiedmann responded that if faculty members are still allowed to indicate how each area of evaluation is to be weighted, this will not be a factor.  A faculty member will be able to weight the area or areas on which they are focusing more heavily than others.  A question was also raised concerning those faculty members who "fail to meet the minimum-expected threshold."  The Senate asked if this would be the university's only response in such a case, i.e., no raise.

It was also pointed out that the second line of Recommendation #2 should specify whether those "exceeding expectations" are intended to receive equal or unequal raises above the level of those faculty members in the middle tier.  It was the intention of the committee that these raises not necessarily be equal.  Senator Sisk pointed out that, even with the changes proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee, the evaluation process will only be as fair as the department chairperson makes it.  She characterized the recommendation as very vague and recommended that the Senate consider sending the matter back to the Ad Hoc Committee or voting it down.  A motion to call the question was made, seconded, and passed.  The amended Recommendation #2 was then voted down.

Senator Link moved to reconsider Recommendation #1.  The motion was seconded by Senator Campbell.

In the ensuing discussion, Senator Campbell pointed out that the two recommendations were part of the same package and closely connected.  Senator Friedman suggested that the language of Recommendation #1 was too weak.  The question to reconsider Recommendation #1 was called and passed by a vote of 13 to 12.

Recommendation #1 read as follows:

Consider eliminating the 1-7 scale currently used along with the current use of a ranking curve and replace both with a minimum-expected threshold.

Senator Friedman explained that Recommendation #1 was intended by the committee to increase faculty involvement in the setting of goals and standards for the purpose of evaluation.  Senator Cronic pointed out that annual evaluations are part of the public record and open to public inspection, thus creating a competitive atmosphere amongst faculty within a department.

A motion was made to amend Recommendation #1 to read:

Consider eliminating the 1-7 scale currently used along with the current use of a ranking curve.
["and replace both with a minimum-expected threshold" was removed]

Discussion of the amended recommendation continued.  VPAA Buskhiester reminded the Senate that current law mandates and the administration is therefore required to demonstrate that all raises are merit based.  The BOR takes the point of view that not all faculty members will rank at the top of the scale.  In addition, he explained to the Senate that the administration of the university expects that the percentage recommendations for salary raises submitted by department chairs will correlate with the results of the faculty members' evaluations.  Senator Bielic asked what the administration expected to see regarding small departments.  He pointed out that there might not be much difference in performance levels between faculty members in such, small departments.  VPAA Buckhiester acknowledged that there might not be much of a spread in evaluation numbers in such cases.  Senator Gannaway suggested that the real problem is not the 1-7 scale but the requirement that members of each department be ranked in comparison with one another.  It was pointed out that this is a requirement over which neither the Senate nor the Administration has any control.

Senator Friedman moved to call the question.  Senator Wiedmann seconded the motion.  The motion to call the question carried.  The amended Recommendation #1 failed.

Ad-Hoc Committee on Sexual Harassment

Senator Weinberg distributed copies of the final report prepared by the Ad-Hoc Committee on Sexual Harassment to all senators present.  He suggested that, due to the significance of the report, senators share the contents of the report with all of their constituents and reserve discussion, recommendations, etc. until the November 9, 2000, meeting of the Faculty Senate.

New Business

Feedback to Students Prior to Midterm

VPAA Buskhiester explained that he was coming to the Faculty Senate to request that the Senate endorse the following policy:

All instructors are to provide significant feedback to students concerning their academic performance and grades prior to the last day to withdraw from a class with a grade of "W."

Senator Wiedmann asked for a clarification of "significant feedback."  She inquired whether this meant filling out a report or form or something else.  VPAA Buskhiester responded that the wording was intended to allow flexibility, but he thought the requirement could be met by a test, a major presentation, or any other form of graded work constituting a significant portion of the final grade.

Senator Friedman moved to approve the policy.  Senator B. Morris seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

Faculty Affairs Committee

Dr. Thurman reported to the Senate concerning the issues and concerns with which the Faculty Affairs Committee is currently dealing.  They are the following:
 

• Can faculty members be paid on a twelve month schedule rather than a ten month schedule?
• The makeup of search committees for administrative positions which have faculty status
• A rumor that all courses having on-line components must be reviewed and approved by IIT
• A study of salaries of full professors in comparison to the national average
• The length of time between final examinations and graduation, requirements to attend graduation, and loss of time off due to semester conversion

CEO Woods informed the Senate that he had not been advised of any announcements prior to the meeting.  He called for announcements from the floor.  There were none.  The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
 

S.N. Wiedmann, Secretary
NGCSU Faculty Senate