FacEx Meeting Minutes
- Ani Kokobobo
- Justin Blumenstiel
- Kristin Villa
- Nate Brunsell
- Samuel Brody
- Victor Gonzalez
- Amanda Mollet
- Josh Arpin
- Cambrey Nguyen
- Suzanne Scales
- Caty Movich
- Jeff Chasen
Approval of Previous Minutes —
Meeting minutes from April 11, 2023. Motion to approve by Kristin Villa. Ani Kokobobo seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Unfinished Business —
Recommendations for Open Access Policy by the Libraries Committee
The policy was sent to everyone. They made minor changes. There is no Faculty Senate Meeting until the fall. We can approve this now and do an email vote. The minor changes might be technical. This policy lives in Governance. Going forward, the committee might want to expand it to include other constituencies. It will be in next year’s charge.
Ani would like to defer to the committee. We could send to Faculty Senate and get a virtual vote. It would need to be completed, but we do not have 21 days to complete this. We can send this to faculty senate for next year.
Ani Kokobobo made a motion to accept the Library Committee’s recommendation on the changes to the Open Access Policy and send this to the Faculty Senate in the Fall. Sam Brody seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
General Research Fund-Research Committee
Based on the feedback we got during the process and open forums on discussion of the reallocation of the GRF we asked the research committee to come up with a survey for faculty to see if they even want the GRF changed. Nate shared the survey the committee created. Question 1 is “Does the allocation need to Change?”, Question 2 is a potential strategy for the reallocation. The idea is to get faculty opinions on the strategy for the GRF. The committee needs guidance and opinions to move forward. Kristin suggested to insert text showing the GRF is reviewed every three years so that it was clear. Victor suggested to indicate faculty per unit. The last suggesting was to ask for potential options for reallocation strategies. Nate will pass on the suggestions to the committee chairs.
Academic Assessment Committee
This committee is leading the institutions assessments. Nate shared the document from HLC meeting. They are looking for opinions on how to select the members for the committee. They would like to have faculty members who are engaged in assessment. A discussion followed on how to do this. One way is to have FacEx appoint someone. Or they look for someone engaged in assessment and FacEx approves this person. Nate asked for feedback.
- They have the committee staffed now. Does Nate stay on the committee as he rolls off FacEx? Ani and Nate spent a significant amount of time to provide recommendations for the HLC committees. It makes sense to renew these appointments. Once someone no longer is in the role, there should not be the same level of expectation.
- Sam suggested that if there are undergraduate directors who are Senators that might be the logical place to start.
- Kristin suggested that FacEx should keep control of approval. We should leave it open for others to identify potential members. They can solicit nominations. Ani said that this year FacEx provided names and appointed. The process should still be that FacEx approves.
- Ani said last year, FacEx recommended, but they did the final appointment. One suggestion was to put this out to the faculty at large and they can nominate.
- Victor said to retain approval would be the best. If we can all suggest names and then FacEx appoints.
FacEx agreed to retain the authority to approve.
New Business —
Victor Gonzalez reported on new FacEx activities. Suzanne sent an email to invite committee members. Do we need to extend the date past two weeks? We are thinking some in person meetings next year. It would be in the beginning of the year, mid and maybe another. We will send a survey if we do this to get feedback. We are looking at changing the meetings and times.
Victor said we will continue the efforts of the COACHE survey. When we look at the survey results and look at the priorities, we want to continue with that. We are open to new topics for the new year. Kristin and Victor are going to reach out to the deans and chairs and see if they want to attend meetings. We don’t get a lot of messages from them, and that would be good to get the voice of the faculty across campus. Any suggestions from the committee?
Josh (Faculty Compensation). AIRE has been digging into lecturers from the non-tenured side. We are still fine tuning this, but thinking of a fall survey to departments to see how they determine lecturers, how are they evaluated? It would be interesting to have a discussion how the Code addresses lecturers. A structure for lectures might be needed. Across campus, lecturers are utilized differently by departments. This is something that will come out of the survey. How are we using lecturers and evaluating them.
Ani added that as part of COACHE recommendations, we discussed that all non-tenured track faculty would like a different nomenclature. The relevant faculty should be polled on what they want to be called. Last year we worked hard to update the Code to make sure all the titles were reflected. As part of COACHE, we pushed for an education campaign on campus so there is an understanding of the different faculty titles.
Victor said he is on a COACHE committee and there was a discussion about multi-terms and their need to do contracts every year. There is not security there. They have been doing this for a long time.
Ani said there is a task force for compensation that hasn’t been publicized. Ani encourages to get representation from Faculty Compensation committee.
In the recommendations, the non-tenured group, how do you move through the tracks. Move from guidelines to policy. Also, everyone has to be paid a living wage. You need to be paid appropriately for whatever your level is in comparison to other things. Kristin and Victor will put this on their radar.
Josh agreed about the policies and moving across tracks. For example, for Math they must give 3-year contracts. In the Business-School. lecturers are treated the same as teaching professors, they are treated the same as faculty, but there is nothing about the policies in place for progression.
Kristin commented on the issue that policies across departments should be similar for non-tenured track positions. Tenure track faculty have similar policies across departments.
Victor commented that each unit is dealing with this in its own way, it would be better to provide a policy for the whole university.
Ani said the administration needs to include Governance in different committees. Ani hopes to finish Shared Governance by first week of May and provide a report. She suggested that Nate remind the Provost that Governance should be included in searches.
Sam said that it is likely that by the end of the Fall there will be a Union election for the faculty. It is likely that the recommendations these committees are working on can incorporated into contract negotiations. All that is found out in committee work will have an important effect. It could be adopted before and then there is no need to be part of the contract. It is likely to happen.
Sam, based on the organizing, I think it will Fall. The law is that there is an election, so everyone will know.
Ani added that thinking long-term, we should think about things that fall within the purview of Governance and things that fall in the purview of a Union. We can be intentional about it, and it doesn’t become competitive. Intentional outlining of that would be useful. How would you organize the different areas with the faculty.
Ani commented that having worked with GTAC Union, they are focused on certain things. We need both-a union body and governance body. You want to be intentional to ensure maximum representation. Sam-will talk with people at Fort Hay to discuss what difference in roles of their governance versus unions.
Ani said as governance leaders we want all to feel that they can come to this space for advocacy. Nate added that being intentional about the demarcation between the two is important.