Special Faculty Assembly Meeting
26 people in attendance
The meeting was called to order by Jim Van Speybrock at
A motion for approval of the September special assembly minutes was made by Brenda Peters and was 2nd by Robert Mitchell. Vote and minutes were approved.
Jon Stauff reported that the board has passed certain areas
of the faculty handbook to date. He provided an email on
There was discussion regarding faculty committees and the reporting of information to faculty assembly.
Tom Burns asked about faculty membership on committees when faculty are a minority on that committee
Lori Rodrigues Fisher inquired if non faculty were voting members? They shouldnt be.
Tom Burns provided the example of Academic Support in which faculty are the minority.
Lori Rodrigues Fisher indicated this would be an easy
change to expedite.Nonfaculty should be non voting
members.
Scot Heisdorffer stated this may be a mute point if all faculty decisions which are made can be overturned by administration
Ron Wastyn stated that the faculty assembly is check on what is done by each committee in some cases.
Jon Stauff stated that all governance committees are a subset of this body (faculty assembly) and issues could be brought to this body for discussion. Concern is related to committees such as PTS and Grievance where confidential issues are often discussed.
Bill Parsons indicated, as a faculty, we elect members to these committees, however the number of people present at faculty assembly meetings are not representative of the faculty if/when a vote is taken. If basic statements are taken at face value, why have reports submitted from committees at the end of the year? How do we as a group decide who should sit on committees? We need some oversight of committees
Jon Stauff that is the principle, it has never really been expressed that way. The board will strike it down.
Paul Jacobsen Why is this body called faculty assembly rather than faculty senate? We need to remember the origin of this assembly. The idea that committees report back with some expectations was a characteristic of the assembly. Some responsibilities were delegated and some were not. There is a reason why we are a faculty assembly and not a faculty senate. Maybe this fact needs to be pointed out to the board as to how the faculty assembly was organized back in the 1960s, 1970s.
Fr. DeFrancisco Board will ask: do all committees report? The board finds this troublesome
Lori Rodrigues Fisher what if a teacjher applies for tenure and is denied? She could call a special meeting of the faculty assembly and present her view and this could be negative. Same thing could happen with a grievance. The board is concerned about this, people would be embarrassed.
R. Wastyn these examples, PTS, Grievance do not fit their concern
Jon Stauff the handbook committee can address this more explicitly. Ive received comments today.
Tom Burns suggested this wording (see underlined)
a.Section 2 Delegation of
Responsibility: the officers recommend removing the following
statementAlthough the Faculty Assembly has delegated certain specified
oversight to
each governance committee, the ultimate
responsibility resides in the Faculty Assembly itself. Therefore, The
Faculty Assembly reserves the right to review and/or decide any matter or issue
addressed by any governance committee. The Board feels that such a
statement weakens the governance committee structure. Additionally, the
Board states that with such a statement, faculty may not chose to not to serve
on governance committees that reports directly to faculty assembly if
they can be easily overturned by the full assembly. Finally,
the Board states that if governance committee members are elected by the
faculty, than the faculty should have confidence in their decision making.
Regarding quorum, the board compromises with faculty assembly chair declares a quorum.
Brenda Peters what does that mean?
Jim Van Speybroeck Currently, a quorumconsisted of a majority of those present. . Officers suggested 50% plus 1 which would mean 85 +1 if this were to be the case the faculty would probably not agree Ms Linda Neuman, Chair of the Board of directors sub-committee on academic affairs, suggested that faculty chair could declare a quorum as we do now.
R. Wastyn that is challengable right?
Jon Stauff referring to Section 2.5.3 no problem with inserting
Paul Jacobson what does 2.5.3 mean?
Lori Rodrigues Fisher it is in the Deans job description to write letters for tenure and post tenure review.
Jon Stauff However there was a dispute last year regarding whether a Dean should write a letter. This was a bone of contention.
Lori Rodrigues Fisher this statement was previously in the handbook and was removed by the committee
Jon Stauff we dont have any problem with putting it back in there.
Paul Jacobson what about the terminology through the dean .
Jon Stauff The Dean was writing letters to PTS original handbook no role for the Dean. Certain members of the faculty did not want the Dean writing letters in 5 year post tenure review. We will be publicizing this.
Section 2 Rgarding special meetings, the board wants this section unchanged.The President can call a meeting at any time.
Paul Jacobson does anyone have a problem with this? Section 2?
Jon Stauff anyone want to discuss Section 2? No
Jon Stauff we are the last constituency on campus to approve the Harassment Policy. The issue last year was statue of limitations. There are no statute of limitations listed in any other faculty policy, just statement requesting timely reporting.
Lori Rodrigues Fisher this policy has been reviewed by the board and officers
Jon Stauff has been reviewed by all except faculty assembly and we had the opportunity to vote on it at the meeting in April 2006 and we did not due to lawyer not being available.
Tom Burns made a motion to approve the Harassment Policy as presented
Brenda Peters seconded the motion
Fr. DeFrancisco- this is a general harassment policy, not just a sexual harassment policy, correct?
Jon Stauff clarified who reports to whom as per the harassment policy
Fr. DeFrancisco what about a person who wants to bypass this process and go for a civil proceeding?
Lori Rodrigues Fisher an attorney will tell them they must go through the internal process
Vote motion approved this was the first reading of this motion
Second reading will be on
Jon Stauff Section V consider what has been added to this document which was sent via email today. Issues of advising, attending faculty assembly are included in this section and faculty are strongly encouraged to review this section and provide feedback to Jon prior to the next special faculty assembly meeting. The faculty handbook likes the content of this section but invites feedback which will be brought forward at the November 16th meeting.
Jon Stauff the next section will be Section VI which is adjunct faculty handbook and part time faculty. Information was solicted from all departments with part time faculty. This will be disseminated in approximately the next 10 days. There was a proposal by academic deans to have a category of visiting faculty and this could be included as an additional paragraph in Section 3.
Keith Haan asked for an explanation of the difference between part time and adjunct faculty
Jon Stauff part time are on contract each year, for part time. Adjunct may be different people each academic year, depending on departmental need.
Lori Rodrigues Fisher adjunct are contracted on a need basis
Jon Stauff next two weeks, please provide comments on Section V.
Michael Hustedde identified need for feedback on content
Jim Van Speybroeck identified the next meeting on November 9, would like to have Section V on the agenda unless there are objections for a first reading/vote.
Tom Burns made a motion to adjourn
Mike Opar seconded the motion
Meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,