Faculty Assembly Minutes

Thursday, March 13, 2008

M. Adams called the assembly to order at 3:05pm.

M. Adams called for accepting the January minutes. R. Serianz moved to accept them, M. Halfhill seconded.

M. Adams called for accepting the February minutes. T. Schuster-Matlock moved to accept them, R. Mitchell seconded.

S. Kalber alerted those present that information would be forthcoming about the smoke-free campus study and asked that people continue to send feedback to the committee.

P. Koch talked about the Evaluation of Administrators committee and asked that people consider volunteering for the committee. There are open slots for one tenured and one non-tenured faculty. Any questions about this should be directed to Paul.

B. Parsons proposed the formation of a task force to examine faculty governance. This task force would identify and address concerns with faculty governance over the course of one year.

B. Grant moved to create this task force and R. Serianz seconded. D. Ebener asked if the committee would require a whole year. B. Grant said that he believes we need a Faculty Assembly but that this one isn’t working. B. Parsons responded that the committee might determine that it is best to maintain an assembly. He added that the committee would need representatives from all colleges. Vote: motion carried.

R. Jerz presented the faculty job description. A. Swift moved to accept it as written. R. Richards seconded. S. Cassady asked if it should be changed to highlight scholarship, research, etc. M. Opar said that the outside employment clause has been vague and the wording should be more specific about our duty to support the mission. A. Swift reminded those present that this is a job description and should not supercede the handbook and so shouldn’t be overly specific. B. Grant there needs to be clarity in the duties as enumerated, specifically to the discipline. A. Axup moved to ask the committee to continue their work. J. Barr seconded. Vote: motion carried.

B. Hixon offered the second reading of the proposal to restructure the PTS committee. C. Winter moved to accept the second reading. R. Serianz seconded. B. Grant commented that he thought this was moving too quickly. J. Trapp this is a good idea but it seemed too sudden to move on this for the fall. A. Swift clarified that this would create a PTS in the College of Professional Studies. B. Parsons asked how this would effect the non-tenured faculty who came to SAU with the understanding that the PTS would be at the university level. P. Hall said these committees would be using the same standards so this shouldn’t be a problem but the problem has to do with the concept not the time involved, we want to formatively evaluate our faculty and that isn’t happening in the current system, with the move to a college-level PTS there would be a greater chance of conversation taking place that would lead to formative criticism. B. Grant said that people outside the college can contribute something to the evaluation system. He added that there could be another option besides this dramatic change and asked what assurance there would be that the standards would stay the same for all the colleges. R. Richards asked if it would be possible that different colleges could require different information or use different processes and it might be the case that different standards would be appropriate in different colleges. He asked how this structure would work, what coordination would be in place. He also asked who these PTS committees would report to, whether it would be Faculty Assembly or the colleges. L. Rodrigues-Fisher said that any changes would have to be approved by both the Faculty Assembly and Board of Directors. C. Winter said this is what some other schools our size are doing and there are options for how to apply this. K. Trujillo asked if we can suggest applying this in Fall 2009 to allow for a transition year. She then moved to so amend and G. Bailey seconded. K. Soko asked if we should approve something that we need a year to gather more information about. Vote on amendment: 46 yes, 15 no.

M. Hustedde said that this is not a work-load problem so if the system is flawed dividing the committee won’t resolve it. R. Richards asked aren’t we just creating three problematic processes rather than the one problematic process that we have. C. Johnson said what it takes to make a well-informed decision for has changed and our procedures reflect this. P. Koch said standards and instruments are currently being reviewed but these can be applied at the college or university level. L. Rodrigues-Fisher said changing the process can’t happen without the Board’s approval. A Swift moved to refer this back to the committee. R. Wastyn seconded. R. Stephens said more data about this proposal would help us to resolve the issue. B. Hixon said the committee probably won’t come to any new conclusions because this has been exhaustively discussed. A. Swift noted that there will be new committee members to PTS in the next year and perhaps they would have something to suggest. Vote: 36 yes, 22 no.

B. Grant presented the second reading of the proposal to change the status of the general education committee to a standing Faculty Assembly committee. A. Preston moved to accept. R. Serianz seconded. J. Corea-Kaiser asked if the 5-year review of programs goes to EPC or to GE. B. Grant said that GE has nothing to do with 5-year review. A. Swift said that because GE is policy-recommending and EPC is policy-making then EPC will trump over GE. The question was called, vote: the proposal passed.

J. Trapp moved to accept the proposal of the academic program closure policy. R. Serianz seconded. B. Grant asked why this was not done by EPC. M. Adams answered that Sr. Joan sent it to Faculty Assembly. B. Grant responded that it needs to go to EPC and A. Preston asked why. B. Grant responded that more time needs to be spent and EPC would be able to dedicate the time to doing this. A. Axup said the committee’s intention was to allow the review to die in as many places as possible. B. Hixon suggested that it read that 2 criteria must be met to begin review because the economic viability criterion was not enough to review a program. A. Preston agreed and added that the wording should be that a review “can” or “may” take place rather than “will” take place. J. Madsen moved to return this to the committee. G. Bailey seconded. Vote: motion carried.

M. Adams said that comments should be e-mailed to the committee and added that those interested in being considered for chair-elect should contact herself or C. Shoemaker.

L. Brown moved to adjourn. G. Bailey seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm.

Minutes respectfully submitted,

Jessica Gosnell