Faculty Senate Report

Nate met with the Provost on Friday. An email about COACHE forums went out today. Nate said they are getting the presentations ready. The starting presentation will be a week from Friday in the afternoon in Slawson Hall and then the academic meetings will be after that. Following that, we are organized around themes, and they will take the feedback and make recommendations that we will deliver to the provost. Hopefully, we will get some real action. The Governance Visioning Event is on Friday. Please attend and pass the word on that. It works well if we have participation and voices in that process. That’s mostly what is occupying our time. 

University Senate Report

Ani gave an update on activities. We have the interim policy. We have COACHE and Shared Governance. The question is large “What does it mean to be an exceptional learning community”. The goal is to make things more open. We need to make things more open to the community. The Grove Process is a three-stage process. It starts with Context. Part 3 is what do we want to be as a community. That will result in some language eventually. This past year AP&P ran a process that felt predetermined. Another issue is the University Senate. There have been some microaggressions felt by the students. The feel they are not treated as peers. Some of this tension has given rise to the organization of University Senate.

As faculty, we need to decide academic policy. Right now, the Senate has 63 total.  39 faculty, 13 staff, 13 students.  If we go to 21 of each, that would be fine.  Ani believes faculty will be glad not to do double duty with two senates. I think the President needs to be a faculty member.  I think credentials do matter.  It can be ruled by experts.

Ani suggested we use the upcoming Governance meeting to be an ad hoc committee. Ani asked for input on this.

Nate agrees with what Ani says. Faculty do need to control academic policies. A more extreme move would be to move academic to Faculty Senate. The one-third each group makes sense to Nate. Faculty will not object to not going to the University Senate.

Kristin thinks it’s a good idea.  Lowering the number of faculty is a good choice. It brings up other questions. Student perceptions are incredibly important. We need to be more inclusive in our language.

Ani said some of it is a generational thing. We can say we are doing this because of equity. We should look at our own house. This was brought up in the past. We should have language for how we should pick the 21. Ani is going to look at the law school to help look at the code and see what we can do. We need to make sure there are faculty ranks represented.

Representation and equity are important.

New Business —

FSRR Article X. Section 5, Policy on Interim Leaders

Nate shared the policy. This was reviewed in the past. A long-standing interim can sometimes be a long-standing permanent. How do you enforce the proposed procedures? Nate opened for discussion. Kristin said we don’t want to create something where we won’t have searches. 

Jeff Chasen provided comment. We do have those processes, but they can be set aside. We have a process for direct hires, and we don’t have the authority to tell someone they can’t hire direct.

Jeff encouraged Governance to take a stronger stand and say that there won’t be an interim longer than 24 months. You are part of the dialogue than and have a change for input. Having good solid language and process for consultation for exception to the policy gives the best chance of having some impact.

A discussion followed if 24 months was too long. Ani said she felt 24 months was too long.

We weren’t going to pass policies that weren’t going to be followed.  There won’t be an interim without a regular check in with Governance.  Ani recapped recommendations.

Jeff said “18 months” would be good. The use of interim is not to exceed 18 months instead of “may not”, “should not”, or “will not”, just is “not to exceed 18 months”. Any exceptions would be made after consultation with University Senate. University Senate can complain if they are not consulted.

Ani asked if we want to move it to 18 months. Nate liked 18 months and Jeff’s suggestion. Betsy said that this makes sense, 18 months seems long enough. There should be pressure to make it a completed search.

Ani made some revisions to the policy and screen shared the updates.

Kristin asked if when an interim must be appointed if selection criteria for the role should be publicized. Those who would be affected by this could give input. Ani added “Associate Vice Provost”. 

As far as the process, this must be approved by FacEx.  

Nate asked for more comments. None. Nate will send via email for a vote.

Volunteer/nominee for the competency-based education design process led by Neal Kingston

How do we give academic credit for experience not in traditional setting? For example, social welfare and nursing. Neal is working on a committee to promote best practices and he is looking for a faculty member to represent there.

Betsy recommended Lance Rake in Design. Kristin will email some nominations. They will welcome participation.

Close the meeting to discuss Faculty Senate Restricted Research Committee member replacement. None objected.

Meeting adjourned.