Approval of Previous Minutes —

Amanda Mollet made a motion to approve the minutes from Nov. 8.  Kristin Villa seconded the motion.  The minutes were approved unanimously.

Guest Speaker Presentation —

He was invited to discuss the committee’s feedback on the committee charges.  Kevin said mostly the feedback is clarifications on the charge.  Kevin said it was nice to get the absence policy moving along.  Regarding Charge #8, non-tenured track ad hoc committee--there was some other activity in Faculty Affairs along this line.  We both independently came across a survey on non-tenured faculty.  They are looking at the data that was never looked at.  FacEx might want to have this information.  Our committee took a pause on this to see what Faculty Affairs learned with the survey.  We don’t want to do exactly what they are doing.  Until there is clarity how they are looking into this, we are sitting tight.  The committee’s angle was going to be what policies, if any, are on the books regarding non-tenure participation in departmental affairs, voting rights, etc.    

The other things were more specific directions on second charge “continue to monitor and contribute to discussions concerning the discontinuance of programs…”.  Nate shared the document with charges. 

Nates response to charge #8.  There is a lot of movement on this.  How are these faculty members promoted?  What is the structure of the promotion?  Is there three years and then a promotion?  The rationale was to discuss some of those issues.  We want to make sure there is faculty advocacy.

Ani commented that we are going to determine existing conditions beyond the policies, as there are some practices that aren’t policy.  We were going to see what is happening on the ground.

Nate said that some of this came up after the charges were done.  Approaching it from a policy angle, are things in alignment across the campus.

Lou Mulligan commented.  The 2019 survey, Jennifer is working on the methodologies and finding who was surveyed.  We are not sure if the survey is aged out.  It is not going to be a fast process.  Lou’s office is also focusing on non-tenure tracked faculty.  If we are going to look at ranks, it makes sense to have people in that rank involved in the process.  It would be good to work with Nate to make sure the right representation is in the group.

Ani asked if it would be good to have FRPR representation in the group.  Lou said yes, it is good to have him involved.  It is important to have the rank represented and one chair or associate dean to deal with the regulatory aspects. 

 A survey what is currently happening is helpful.  Lou’s office can support this if they need to.  The governance office can help Kevin put together something. 

Kevin said getting to the substance of what faculty titles mean is what will be helpful.  We are looking at a survey for department chairs.  Ani offered to push it out on the College list, if the committee wants.  It is unclear how to transition to positions.  This is a good time to survey again.  In addition to chairs, it will be good to have voices on those in those positions.  Nate said it would be good to get a survey out to those in these positions to see what they want in the positions.

Kristin said for those that fall under academic staff, they should be considered too.  Lou commented that we have a series of titles, non-tenured.  Each has its own policies, and they will have to look at each one separately.  It’s a challenge.  We have units who have those who 50 percent teaching and 50 percent administrative.  Teaching professors are more than 50 percent, but you are making someone a teaching professor, who may be more administrative.  There are many issues. 

Nate said a survey would be a good place to start to find out issues to form policy.  Lou agreed and asked Nate to talk with Jennifer.  We also need to make sure we are using precision with the titles.  I would add chairs and faculty members, as well as associate deans. 

Ani suggested that charge 2 be deleted—discontinuance charge.  Also delete charge -absence policy.  Kevin commented on charge 8 again.  We will try to reach the decision makers to get the bigger picture.  As far as the ad hoc committee, we don’t have clarity.  This is something Lou is arranging.  Nate suggested that Kevin and committee do a survey and focus on the advocacy side.  The reality on the ground is the reality on the ground, and where we should focus. 

Kevin said that through discussions with non-tenures of all backgrounds, we have found there are various policies, duties, etc.  It does not make sense. 

Nate suggested that to find best practices.

Charge 4 and 7 (assist FacEx and SPPT with proposal for Faculty Development) were championed by Chris Brown.  Nate said this is more a charge for SPPT.  Charge 7 was removed from the committee charge. Charge 4 is work with CTE and Chris Brown to develop procedures for confidentiality of online student evaluations.  Is there concern from faculty?  Kevin said they can look into how that could happen.  Ani suggested Kevin speak with Andrea Greenhoot and Doug Ward.  They would be a good resource.  Kevin will reach out. 

The committee questioned charge 5 and 6.  Is this AP&P realm?  It went to Faculty Rights because faculty have rights to syllabus.  Kristin said this was brought to them last year, so it was brought forward.  This has also been brought to HLC.  If we are going to have more policy around syllabi, we can think about this question of intellectual property.  There are two syllabi committees for HLC.  Ani will take Charge 6 to AP&P. 

Kevin said the committee can tackle Charge 5.  We don’t have a lot of language on syllabi.  Kevin said he now has more clarity on the committee charge.  This will help the committee’s concern of too many charges. 

Faculty Senate Report

1. COACHE Survey. We will have another meeting on Thursday.  We hope to come out with a list of actionable items.  We hope to have another campus-wide email with COACHE analysis and plan, outlining the process.  Ani and Nate met with the Provost.  We hope to kick-off with a forum in the Spring of a roundtable with results and Q&A sessions. 
2. Nate, Ani, Victor, and Kristin met with the Chancellor yesterday.  It was a high-level discussion on some of the political issues in the state and how this may affect the budget.  Also, there was some discussion on 11th and Mississippi project.  They are doing some surveys to be completed by January.  More discussion will follow later.
3. GRF allocation.  We have a message to go out tomorrow.  This will have a spreadsheet of recommended allocations.  This is in preparation of upcoming faculty senate meeting.  We hope to get feedback from across campus.  Faculty Senate meeting will be promoted to all faculty.

University Senate Report

1. Shared Governance is moving forward.  We are waiting to see what type of response we get and if there is interest.  The first phase includes broad campus community engagement.  I’d also like to kickoff Phase II which is roles and responsibilities.  We are racing against the clock.  We are trying to get the word out and get people involved.  It would be helpful to articulate where we want to be and the different roles.  Phase 3 will be around communications around decisions which have the potential to bring about change.  Some basic culture change could only help.  Ani asked all to help get the word out.
2. COACHE.  We’ve been working to see how we can engage colleagues around the recommendations.  It’s about decisions and recommendations are made.  Any way we can find a way to incorporate as many as possible in decisions is important.  One role Ani feels strongly about is one of faculty expertise.  We have issues with decisions being made for us.  When could a faculty expert contribute to a decision?  There’s a time and place for all of us to contribute.  Culture change takes time and I hope we can be part of the culture change.    
3. Ani is getting ready for the University Senate meeting on Dec. 1.  The Provost will attend.

New Business —

Nate reminded everyone to spread the word that the Provost will be attending the next University Senate meeting. Spread the word to encourage colleagues to come to Faculty Senate meeting on GRF distributions.