FacEx Meeting Minutes
- Betsy Barnhart
- Justin Blumenstiel
- Nate Brunsell
- Ani Kokobobo
- Corey Maley
- Amanda Mollet
- Kristin Villa
- Jeff Chasen
- Caty Movich
- Suzanne Scales
Approval of Previous Minutes —
Meeting minutes from November 29, 2022. Motion to approve by Kristin Villa. Seconded by Justin Blumenstiel. Motion passed unanimously.
Faculty Senate Report
Nate gave updates. RPF has issued their final report to the Board of Regents. There is an opportunity to provide on the final report until Feb. 17. Ani and Nate will send an announcement to campus. It is a lackluster report. The question is how the board will implement any recommendations. There are some members who won’t go along with the recommendations, in Nate’s opinion. I would encourage everyone to get the word out and feedback to the board. Please fill out the form and get the word out.
Ani and Nate have been busy with COACHE. We will have a series of listening sessions. We are waiting to get some of the data. The meetings are beginning in February and the smaller meeting will be in the end of February and beginning of March.
University Senate Report
Ani has spent much time on COACHE survey that will kick off soon. We talk about morale, and it is time we take action. The solutions to the problems usually occur without consultation. We need to listen to colleagues and take note. That is an important part of the process we are laying out. We have an advisory group, and all the teams will circle back after the listening sessions.
In terms of shared governance, a message went out today. We hope to get participation and input. The idea is to have as many voices included and make better decisions. That is moving forward. We will also do a Phase II on roles and responsibilities. I would like to see different activities happening at the University and transparency. Ani attended strategic visioning exercise. The purpose was to have academic units coordinate better with central administration. The absences policy went out to campus for review. We might do a forum to discuss what that means. We will let faculty know if they are already doing these things, nothing much will change.
Justin Blumenstiel asked a question about the absence policy. People have been asking specific question. It is about embedded policies where you drop the three lowest. Ani said that does not have to change. Justin asked if a professor could go with how they are doing it. Ani said she had heard from some people. They have a way of managing absences already. Ani said our intention is not to reinvent the wheel.
Justin asked if there can be some text that says something to this effect. Ani said the Town Hall would be a good place to address this.
New Business —
Nate said we are asking for nominees for ad hoc committees. Lou Mulligan, Vice Provost, is forming these ad hoc committees and would like faculty input. One is policies related to teaching professors. They have been trying to address non-tenured track policies across campus and they are starting with the teaching professors. This is looking at things like promotion, evaluation, who is voting, and does it go to existing structures (College). Or should it be different? They are seeking 4-6 faculty, preferably non-tenured track. Kevin McCannon is willing to be on the committee.
Kristin Villa asked if they are looking strictly for teaching professors, or also academic staff. Nate believe that he wants to focus on teaching professors. Kristin asked if they want to create something new or build upon a structure that already exist. Do you want the names of those who are academic staff in Kristin’s department? Nate will pass on names. Ani said that this is specifically teaching professors.
Justin asked if there is text about the charges of committee. Nate will check to get what Lou wants to share.
Names provided in chat: Ani Kokobobo nominated Ljudmila Bilkic SGES. Betsy Barnhart nominated Andrea Herstowski from Architecture and Design
Next, Nate said the second ad hoc committee they are looking for guidelines. One issue is the idea of remote work for faculty. Units are requesting faculty member to work remotely, and it’s left to the dean. They have said no to these. In time, they will say yes. There are some legal issues.
The third thing they are looking at it is teaching evaluations. They are addressing the instrument of the evaluations. They are looking for faculty involvement. Kristin Villa volunteered for the committee.
Justin asked Nate to explain delivery. This is on the content and questions of evaluation. Justin asked if we just had the revision to this. HLC is working on this. Justin asked when the committee will meet. Justin volunteered.
The next thing is the GRF. We’ve gotten feedback from faculty. Nate’s understanding of this is that there is not overwhelming support for this. Nate is wondering how to proceed. He does not see a reason to push this forward due to lack of support for it. He noted the largest rationale for change is that it hasn’t been changed in a while. Nate said Simon Atkinson is saying go back to a university committee.
Nate’s opinion is that we do not want to implement anything right away. His current thinking is to thank people for input and communicate we will continue to look at options for this. We don’t plan to change this for next year. We can send it back to the committee.
Ani said what she heard was people say this is going to “hurt me.” I do not think there was consideration of equity. I am in favor of not moving forward. I am in favor of something that considers equity. We let faculty know we heard them, and we will reevaluate.
Corey Maley asked if at this point we have feedback on better solutions. Or is it status quo is OK? Nate said the feedback was not designed to solicit other alternatives.
Kristin asked if it did not move forward, what is the new timeline? The current plan is not that great. 2-3 years?
Nate said they can start now and maybe have something next Spring and have it implemented the following year. The quickest thing would be two years, and that would be fast.
Ani said that in fairness to committee, they did much work. They should be given explicit information. We should give the committee something. Nate agreed with this.
Justin said that the status quo will still maintain a significant amount of inequity. Should there be an approach to balance things some? One could look at this issue solely.
Ani agreed these current allocations are outdated. Maybe have one portal and have everyone apply for the funds.
Nate summed up the discussion with how to proceed. Nate will reach out to Meredith and Josh (co-chair and chair) and let them know we want to move forward with the new plan. Then, they will notify others.
In response to a comment that some were vocal with their opinions, Ani said there are many people from many departments who were vocal. It is not just a cluster. Let’s not do more harm as we try to fix things.
Nate asked if all agreed the way to proceed is by kicking it back to the committee and asking them to look at university committee, equity, productivity, and things like that. Kristin agreed and suggested providing guidelines would be helpful. Nate asked if having Meredith and Josh attend another FacEx meeting to discuss this is advisable. None opposed.
Nate announced we would move to closed session. None opposed. Closed session discussion (agenda): new restricted research committee chair.