CEO Fuller called the meeting to order at 12:30.
Senators present: S. Batchelder, T. Bellon, K. Biddy, C. Chastain, E. Combier, F. Corotto, B. Friedman, R. Fuller, A. Ghafarian, M. Gilbert, W. Gordon, E. Hummel, C. Jespersen, E. Lewis, K. Mace, D. Morris, G. Olsen, B. Reiselt, A. Schaffer, A. Sumners, D. Suranie, J. Woods.
Senators absent: C. Dare, S. Irwin, M. Minambres, M. Stone, M. Robinson, A. Stucke.
Senators excused: J. O’Neal., S. Smith
Minutes for June 9, 2004 meeting: The minutes were accepted after B. Reiselt made a motion seconded by J. Woods.
President’s report:
1. Ranking: President Hansford announced NGCSU’s ranking in US News & World Report. He attributed that high ranking to the faculty, staff and students here on campus.
2. Enrollment: This is difficult to predict, but confirmation deposits have aided tremendously. President Hansford thanked C. Hawkins, T. McLeod and P. Buckheister for aiding in making those predictions more accurate. Growth this year held at 2% with 3.5% growth for undergraduates and 1.5% for graduates.
3. Budget: The twelfth paycheck (for June) was pushed to July fiscal budget for all Georgia employees. The Governor has indicated that this year’s budget will necessarily include 13 paychecks to balance this. Our current budget is prepared for 12. Now with 13 pay periods, the proportionate deficit will be greater with the regents. It is not yet clear how the governor will make adjustments; it may be additional budgets, tuition increase midyear or other adjustments.
CEO’s report:
New business called for the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion & Tenure report by B. Friedman (who replaced Ann Stucke as chair) and T. Austenfeld.
1. Faculty had requested a review of the proceedings for promotion and tenure. The Committee presented several documents. The first document was a revised version of the document brought to the Senate earlier this summer with input from the Deans’ council. The July 28, 2004 document is written in language suitable for the Faculty Handbook. The committee revised the document to try to give more responsibility to the academic departments. This document maintains in place both the procedure and the tiers of committees currently utilized, but proposes that the individual departments task what they specifically require for promotion and tenure. Thirdly, the document guidelines for promotion and tenure for the Department of Political Science & Criminal Justice were offered as a model. The Committee asked that the Senate approve this as a model to go to the individual department to draft something back for review. This model was offered to ensure conformity and consistency, with more information going to faculty. It also reflects current 2004 expectations and clear requirements toward which a candidate works.
Discussion was held. B.Reiselt pointed out that at the university level there are additional things different from the departmental requirements. B. Friedman responded that the current process is unpredictable now since so it is so vague, thus the committee’s suggestion that the departments work on documents that will be used at the university with a level of clarity, certainty, and a reasonable understanding that what the department is doing is consistent with university and if it is used as such.
Jimmy Woods suggested a reverse order of the documents with departmental guidelines developed before a change is made to the handbook. Another senator pointed out that promotion & tenure committees have difficulty since the process is vague, and committees are free to interpret which lead to inconsistencies and frustration. T. Austenfeld stated that vague is also flexible which is good, so it is imperative that departmental guidelines be comprehensive and clear. Total predictability is not desirable. Morris disagreed stating that flexible becomes unpredictable when committees interpret differently and this proposal minimizes it. C. Jespersen wondered if many people have had a problem. If this is set up at the departmental level, how about the university level saying it is not sufficient? Is there a way to set up consistency across the board?
T. Austenfeld replied that it is possible on cases that are not clear-cut. Departmental guidelines must be approved by the Senate before they may be applied. B. Friedman stated that decisions are based on guidelines of each promotion & tenure committee. N. Hansford applauded the efforts of the committee since was necessary to be done and by faculty. Model is well done and drawn from other universities. He pointed out that any promotion & tenure policy must be specifically approved by the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. T. Bellon stated that the language in the draft does not seem very different. It was clarified that the current policy applies to those faculty going up for review this year. A. Schaffer asked about specificity of the blueprint model offered. B. Friedman replied that senators are empowered to send message to departments to be responsible to develop guidelines like the model. Also, the committee is available to answer questions about how prescriptive the guidelines could be. The committee will need more members. F. Corotto requested and received affirmation that the Senate is limited to making a recommendation to the President. A motion was made based on the recommendation of the committee that the revised policy be adopted in the handbook, that the model be used, and that the committee overview departmental guidelines for consistency. The motion carried.
2. Next, the Ad Hoc Committee requested that a sentence be added stating: “letters of recommendation from promotion & tenure committees must be signed by all members of the committee.” This is to circumvent any more observed irregularities wherein all members have not been present to vote and sign the report. The chairman must have all signatures on report. The motion carried.
3. Ad hoc evaluation committee recommended that the Senate approve the faculty evaluation documentation by consolidating the academic activities report and the department head evaluation all in one form. The artwork for this form was done by M. Slemmons and is visually appealing. This document also makes the three areas of teaching, service and research consistent.
Professional development, formerly referred to as scholarship, is not reflected in the current report. Every section has an area for professional development and provides an area for self-evaluation of faculty. The department head can then make his/her assessment for the final score. This streamlines and consolidates terms to be sent on to the administration.
Corotto asked when this would be implemented. President Hansford would indicate an effective date, but not likely to be this year.
A. Schaffer questions the numerical evaluations that go from needs improvement to merit. Chastain indicated that the average was 3, 4, 5 to get a pay raise. Corotto pointed out that the developmental area concerns him since a department head may feel the need to fill in an area while others may not. Chastain suggested explicit directions to leave blank if candidate shows merit or above, and to fill in only where improvement is necessary. B. Friedman points out that it is desirable to know what is necessary to go from 6 to 7 with something in writing that you can appeal. T. Bellon comments on the problem of faculty needing to do more in research with no travel money and no time. Woods pointed out that his department never failed to get faculty developmental funds. T. Bellon clarified that time is needed to write a book and teach. C. Jespersen points out that the system allows only one 7 and everyone else is less. Gilbert noted that this makes for a competitive atmosphere and wonders why we are in this situation and why do we accept it? He suggests a committee obsession with the bell curve to pit us against each other. Fuller asks that the discussion be put off for now. Fox indicated that we elected to compare ourselves, or pick a departmental standard.
The motion was made to recommend to the President that these documents be combined as suggested. The motion carried.
4. AAUP chapter: V. McCard was granted speaking privileges.
B. Friedman wishes to resolve the loophole wherein students have the right to appeal a grade appeal or a decision of the discipline committee, but the faculty has no right to appeal.
The motion was made to amend the document on p. 2, page 3, page 4 and page 5. B. Friedman argued this was a prima facia case and asks for equitable rights of faculty to appeal. L. Roberts-Betsch indicated that the Board of Regents won’t hear student grade appeals and will not hear from faculty either. A motion was made to strike BOR from wording. President Hansford noted that no other school has faculty right to appeal to academic integrity committee. He indicated that these are legal issues since, technically, students have 14th amendment due process rights and faculty do not. It was pointed out that the Academic Integrity Council is made up of students, not just faculty, and standards are not always met. An appeal may be made to president who has complete authority over academic programs. B. Friedman clarified that it is not his intention to curtail due process rights of student, but to create same for faculty. President Hansford stated that if the BOR lawyer says it does, he will not accept. It was also clarified that the AIC is composed of 12 students, and 10 faculty wherein only 3 students and 2 faculty as a minimum need be present to vote. V. McCard pointed out that in most cases, students are hard on peers, but some are not and should have recused themselves. L. Roberts-Betsch suggested making the policy clearer. The motion to recommend these amendments to the President carried 17 to 2.
5. CEO Fuller presented this last issue on behalf of a faculty member. The faculty member was pressured on the departmental level and required by the head to attend a fund raising meeting by the foundation. The faculty member was contacted by department head and told that he/she was the only person not participating in the department that would otherwise have 100% participation. Fuller, as a Senator, moved that these policies be changed.
President Hansford indicated that that pressure is not condoned by the university and is in fact, inappropriate. He would like the faculty member to speak with him directly. B. Reiselt pointed out that since there is already a policy on fundraising, he recommends that the Senate not vote on this. M. Gilbert disagreed stating that the Faculty Senate should be concerned and draw the President’s attention to this and restate the policy explicitly. T. Bellon noted that if language is too specific, it may keep the alumni association from sending letters since it could be construed as pressure by Jeff Bogan. It was pointed out the Foundation does not want to pressure anyone as it is naturally adverse to any fundraising program. Gilbert suggested revisiting the idea about why the supervisor got a list of who has given or not. T. Bellon pointed out that no employee of NGC can access that information, that means even the foundation. Morris added that it is not required to attend presentations on fundraising. The motion failed.
CEO Fuller adjourned the meeting at 2pm.