DRAFT*** Faculty Senate Meeting   October 14, 2004 ***DRAFT

 

Senators present: S. Batchelder, T. Bellon, K. Biddy,  E. Combier, F. Corotto, B. Friedman, R. Fuller, A. Ghafarian, W. Gordon, N. Hansford, E. Hummel, S. Irwin, C. Jespersen, M. Miñambres, B. Reiselt, L. Roberts-Betsch, A. Schaffer, S. Smith, A. Sumners, D. Suranie, J. Woods.

Senators absent:  M. Stone, C. Dare.

Senators excused: C. Chastain, M. Robinson, G. Olsen, K. Mace, D. Morris, J. O'Neal, M. Gilbert, E. Lewis.

 

Visitors: D. Gessell

 

CEO R. Fuller called the meeting to order at 12:30pm.  Motion to accept the August 10, 2004 minutes given by B. Reiselt and seconded by S.  Smith.  The motion carried with typos noted.  Motion made to accept minutes for the September 9, 2004 meeting made by B. Reiselt, seconded by D. Surano and carried.

 

President’s Report:

 

  1. Thanked participation of all in the presidential search process.
  2. Budget:  Chancellor emailed the university presidents that no tuition increase is likely.   The budget cut will be passed onto sister institutions within the state.   Also, USG’s health system is healthier than the state’s indemnity system.  Our system has a 60-day reserve; a compromise resulted in paring it down to a 30-day reserve that the governor says in not fiscally responsible.  It is better to follow the formula and away from the issue of not funding enrollment formula.  

 

B. Reiselt asked about replacements of any faculty who are leaving.  President affirms that they will be replaced and stated that there will be a freeze on staff first.   Any new positions already in process will continue.

 

  1. President’s responses to Senate’s recommendations from prior meeting. 
    1. He accepts the first two regarding promotion and tenure after Academic affairs reviewed it, but the BOR must approve those changes. 
    2. Another recommendation involves faculty evaluation reports and he asked the deans’ council to study the issue.  After their input, he will decide.
    3. Next, he rejected a recommendation that was made from the Senate regarding appeals based on academic integrity.  He explained his decision was based on a current evaluation of the 3 different processes for appeals: grades, discipline and academic integrity.  First, the BOR will not accept any grade appeals, from faculty or students.  Insofar as discipline and academic integrity, the Office of Legal Counsel knows of no USG institution that authorizes appeals by faculty members. He reviewed all 4-year USG institutions as well as several private institutions in Georgia and none of them allows appeals by faculty for discipline, grades or academic integrity.  He noted that KSU has an elaborate judicial system with a review appeal court by faculty on a limited basis, i.e., significant error in the University Court system or new evidence. A KSU student may appeal to the VP of Academic Affairs or directly to the President in the case of expulsion or suspension only.  A faculty member may not appeal the decision of the University Appeals Court.  Also, Columbus State University allows both faculty and students to an appeal, but only if CSU and BOR procedure was not followed.  He explained further that faculty do not have the right of appeal, but that students do since they have constitutional due process rights wherein faculty do not. 

Finally, the President decided that the current rules are sufficient and clearly stated regarding NGCSU policy and academic integrity.  In the case of discipline and academic matters, a student may make a grade appeal to the President.  Faculty are adequately protected in this process because the student appeal is limited to cases of expulsion or suspension.  He also pointed out that in a grade matter, the appeal is heard by a panel of faculty only.  In an academic integrity matter, the hearing panel makes recommendations to the VPAA, but if irregularities occur, these may be brought to the attention of the VPAA who will decide whether to accept it or not.  Also, a violation of procedure by a hearing panel or any other panel may be brought to the president who will void the action.  For these reasons, and in the interests of all, established rules suffice for now.

 

Academic advisement committee with Donna Gessell, chair: Recommendations were formed after consideration of comments from SGA over advisement.  The Committee researched advisement practices and decided that the complaints were legitimate.   VP P. Buckheister’s charge to the committee was to examine what  advisement is.  The conclusion is that it is both service and teaching.  

 

Committee proposals:

  1. To map out precisely what advisement is by enumerating the responsibilities of both teacher and student, thus facilitating the evaluation of advisors.

Motion made to accept this proposal by B. Reiselt and was seconded by S. Irwin.  The word ‘timeliness’ substituted for ‘time.’  S. Smith questioned future use of faculty as professional career advisors?  D. Gessell explained that this would provide a uniform policy that would be applied according to faculty roles and department heads.  J. Woods pointed out advisement problems with students without majors till their junior year.  D. Gessell indicated that this is an attempt to clarify the advisement process and will be printed in both the undergraduate and graduate bulletins with description of faculty responsibilities in the faculty handbook as well.  A. Schaffer stated a dislike for term ‘assist’ in career options.  D. Gessell noted that this allows students to speak about career options during the year.  The motion carried.

 

  1. Proposed policy for Plan of Study (POS).  The committee believes that students are responsible for selecting courses, but they should be required to seek advisement for first 3 semesters.  This helps them understand input from the academic advisors and avoid possible snafus.   A. Schaffer moved and A. Summers seconded this proposal.  To police this requirement, holds will be placed on student schedules until they have been advised; Registrar Pruitt supports this in order to avoid problems later.  S. Smith suggested that this could be handled by a mass meeting within each department. The POS is not required on each major by end of third semester.  This motion was not approved.  C. Jesperson preferred to have time to share this proposal with his faculty before voting.  L. Roberts-Betsch suggested for first three terms unless exception made for specific groups of students.  J. Woods suggested amending the proposal to indicate 45 hours rather than 3 terms. B. Friedman pointed out that some take only 3credit hours each term.  A. Schaffer agrees to drop that amendment.   S. Irwin moved to postpone this issue, B. Friedman seconded it and the motion carried.
  2. Proposal of faculty training for advisement.  B. Friedman moved to accept adding that deans and department heads may be required, seconded by T. Bellon.  Motion carried.
  3. Assessing advisement:  no current assessment tool in place except faculty activity report.  F. Corotto moved to adopt this proposal and A. Schaffer seconded it.  F. Corotto pointed out that we already assess students as they graduate and questioned the necessity of all this paperwork.  A. Schaffer preferred to talk to faculty members about this.  S. Irwin asked if this applied to graduate students as well as undergraduates.  B. Reiselt asks for origin of this proposal since department heads should handle this without creating more paperwork.  C. Jesperson refused to vote until he consults his faculty. B. Reiselt moved to postpone until November, and S. Irwin seconded it, and motion carried.
  4. Make advisement count as a separate 10% in faculty evaluation under teaching and service.  This would be up to the individual faculty member to decide where it fits with 0% possible.   B. Friedman moved to adopt this proposal and F. Corotto seconded it.  B. Friedman served on the committee that designed the new faculty evaluation form and stated that this is a good idea since acknowledges faculty in this capacity and gives credit for the work we do.  This can be used as documentation on our annual activity reports based on our 60/40 work load.   Motion failed.

 

Speaking privileges given to ITT director, J. Steed about the search for a new Director of Instructional Technology.  He noted that private emails expressed concerns to him as well as to the President regarding this search, so he came to address concerns.  The qualifications for the position are BA or BS degrees.   J. Woods asked if the problems this director would handle involve hardware/software and not personnel/faculty.  J. Steed affirmed this noting this position will offer balance on the technical side to I. Kokkala’s position as Director of Teaching and Learning.   A. Sumners is not working with faculty, so not replicating I. Kokkala’s area.   Distance education, military science and nursing are the departments primarily affected by this position.  The search committee is made up of 4 faculty and 2 staff members. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:50pm.

Respectfully submitted by E. Combier