Faculty Assembly Meeting – Rogalski Center – Thursday February 14, 2008

Mara Adams called the assembly to order at 3 pm

Bill Hixon presented the original and amendments #1 & 2 – PTS proposal

Discussion – this would be the second reading, however since the minutes were not sent, A. Swift suggested we wait to vote on this item.

C. Winter questioned the timing of the upcoming board meeting and the approval timeline for this document

B. HIxon identified the need to approve it by the 3rd meeting, by April

Bill Parsons expressed the preference to “get it right”, to get it to the board when it is ready, we need more time to discuss. We need to understand this document, not just meet a deadline.

A.Swift – been here 18 years, can’t we proceed with change to committee structure without their [the board] approval?

Fr. Grant – I’m just seeing this 2nd amendment now….need more time to think about it. Are there interim solutions that PTS can implement at present without this change?

B. HIxon – not certain

M. Adams – board meetings are April, Oct, Jan

A. Aji – we are all extremely busy – we are having a discussion to have a discussion. Urge you to have a discussion now…there are 40-50 people here, talk to your colleagues now, there is no need to table or postpone.

R. Richards – being done because of workload, asked to reorganize because of workload, is the wak the work is being done – take a serious look at workload to see if necessary, have other items creeped into the workload that could be reassigned? Phil Hall’s mother has died today, keep the Hall family in your prayers…I appreciated Phil’s perspective last meeting. This will increase the workload of the faculty not decrease. Need to study the nature of workload. Is there anything that can be done about that first? I believe action on this is premature until this is decided

B. Hixon – workload: there are 8 committee members – divide into teams of 2. Because of the numbers of reviews we are doing one person looks at all of the information , others do a cursory review of information submitted. Those reviewing – cutting down on the information doesn’t necessarily short change.

K. Trujillo – workload may change based on the new faculty evaluation system. Discussed how the new evaluation system may impact workload.

D. Ebener – amazed that all faculty are doing this at all….seems to me to be an administrative task/duty. Doubt that we could obtain faculty release time for all committee members, but maybe some

L. Rodrigues-Fisher – that would have to go through planning & budgeting and won’t happen this year

B. Parsons – there has been an argument that within the college may have better knowledge of the discipline, will there be reliability across colleges as to how the ratings are done?

B. Hixon – addressed in the amendment

A. Aji – I am part of the process of triple inspection. Faculty completes self evaluation and writes a letter, chair writes a letter and dean. PTS checks everything. Redundancy is already embedded in the process. Trust one another why cannot this transfer to the colleges?

A. Swift – it can…should all colleges have the same criteria? Any consideration given to this concerns as to whether this has been well thought out. I want time to reflect on

B. Hixon – grad programs would require different standards – there has been some discussion on campus of movement toward development of a  graduate college.

L. Rodrigues-Fisher – must go through the board of directors

A. Aji – are we investing our trust in the right place?

K. Colwell – new faculty eval – to jump ahead with this without knowledge of that system is unnecessary at this time.

C. Stevens – other alternatives? Would it be possible not to interview early faculty to decrease the responsibilities assign duties to others?

A. Ambrose – how do we, can we, make the best decisions Decision making of PTS should be guiding our actions, decision, discussion

C. Daters – presented past experience at U of NE – Lincoln tenure system in which the requirements kept changing.

B. Hixon – we could take a straw poll to decide if we should bring this to a vote today? Verbal response to take more time to examine/consider

Verbal straw poll indicated faculty wanted more time for consideration of the PTS proposal & amendments brought forth by PTS and presented by B. Hixon.

M. Adams – faculty job description – this is language from the handbook. Do we need an ongoing faculty handbook committee? Job description cannot be changed unless the handbook is changed as the language in the description comes from the handbook.

T. Burns – MOTION – I move that we form a permanent faculty handbook committee

Ann Present – 2nd the MOTION

Discussion

A.Swift – I speak in opposition of this. There is no work for them to do? What other business needs to be done?

T. Burns – with increased growth, it would be nice to have an elected body that see this document as it’s work.

A. Swift – what changes are we anticipating? Large scale changes?

A. Preston – change/closure of a program would be an addition to the handbook

A. Axup – agree with A. Swift. If changes are needed appoint a committee at that time.

A. Ambrose – What is the role of this proposed committee? Definition of?

M. Adams  - could have an investigative role

K. Colwell – ad hoc may reinvent the wheel all the time. A permanent committee = greater expertise and history.

A. Ambrose – they could address questions which would arise “is this a handbook question” ?

A. Swift – too soon, I’d like to move to table the job description. I feel it would be a mistake to vote to change the handbook today.

Fr. Grant – Would someone defend?

Gary (CIS department) – need more specific information related to this committee

A.Swift – MOVE TO TABLE the issue of permanent handbook committee

K. Grenier – 2nd

Vote – MOTION TABLED

Back to the original motion of job descrioption

J. Barr – which one

M. Adams – both

T. Schlabach – MOTION – I move to approve both job descriptions as written

A. Swift – 2nd

D. Ebener – research, teaching, advising….service is missing – service to the community. Practitioner in the field.

K. Trujillo – service now falls under scholarship in the new evaluation system – psychologists keep current in their field, clinical practice, considered scholarship.

B. Hixon – PTS views scholarship differently – need to further discuss the term scholarship

L. Rodrigues-Fisher – we have a definition of scholarship.

S. Cassady – Scholarship of engagement is not yet included

K. Trujillo- that will come up again in the faculty evaluation system – new

A. Ambrose – scholarship?

A. Axup – 1 of 4, service is missing, community service, so service is missing

D. Ebener - Add bullet point about service – we need to make more explicit pieces that need to be there.

D. Ebener – could I draft language?

A. Preston – we must use what is in the handbook already

R. Jerz – wording from this job description is different than the handbook.

A. Preston – handbook states advisor of up to 25 UG…Job description states average of 21

T. Schlabach the job description came from Don Moeller

K. Lillis – revise the handbook to include job description, why do we have 2 separate things – can’t we just say refer to appendix a?

Mara – Sr. Joan asked for a specific job description

A.Aji – discussion # of advisees

T. Burns – 5.1 already in place in the handbook

C. Daters – will I be evaluated on that?

L. Rodrigues-Fisher – you are evaluated based on the handbook, job description taken from faculty handbook.

R. Jerz – is this reflective of the handbook? Same wording?

J. Barr – I speak in opposition to this motion

C. Winter – move to refer it to the __________committee. Can I do this?

A. Swift – table and redo, we can’t have action on this

B. Parsons – we need an expert Parlimentarian

J. Barr – redraft this document and bring it back to the assembly

M. Adams- is it fair to ask them to clean it up again? They are the now defunct handbook committee

A. Ambrose – Retool this document – tweaks need to be made

Rick Jerz, Bill Hixon & Dan Ebener volunteered for this task

T. Schlabach – WITHDREW MOTION

A. Swift also withdrew

B. Parsons – history of faculty governance questions and discussion at SAU. Discussion of moving from a faculty assembly to a senate, more important to decide as a group.

Fr. Grant – great idea

T. Burns – time limit?

B. Parsons – within one year, do it, do it right. I believe the faculty has a strong commitment to faculty governance. Gave examples of commitment – teaching, visioning participation, committee service

L. Marx – what is the difference between faculty senate & assembly?

B. Parsons – senate guaranteed representation

Fr. Grant – does this group represent the will of the faculty?

R. Stephens – SAU had a senate when we were a college, gives more representation

T. Burns – we had a senate in my memory here at SAU

B. Parsons – we will discuss this at the next meeting

Fr. Grant – GEC motion was voted on in the fall, meeting before Christmas. This would be the 2nd vote.

A.Swift – many people didn’t know about the meeting til right before it. Minutes weren’t sent out. No one knows about this meeting. Should we wait and vote on this during the next meeting.

Fr. Grant – the proposal will be sent out again for review and 2nd reading and vote will occur at the next meeting

A.Swift – MOVE to adjourn

T. Burns – 2nd

Meeting adjourned at 4:15 pm

Respectfully submitted,

Christine Urish (fill in secretary selected by Mara Adams for Jessica Gosnell)