Download
1 / 46
460 likes | 593 Views
April 18, 2013* * first iteration was presented 4/12/2013 @ Senate Meeting. FACULTY SENATE AY 2012-2013 YEAR IN REVIEW. The Year in Revue.
E N D
April 18, 2013**first iteration was presented 4/12/2013 @ Senate Meeting FACULTY SENATE AY 2012-2013 YEAR IN REVIEW
The Year in Revue [L to R] George Zestos, Raouf Selim, Michelle Barnello, Jana Adamitis, Kip Redick, Brian Puaca, Kara Keeling, Abbe Depretis, James Martin, Stephanie Bardwell, Bill Connell, Ed Weiss, Linda Manning [not pictured, Dali Wang]. Photo courtesy of Jesse Hutcheson
Mtg. HIGHLIGHTS…our STUDENTS! Many STUDENTS active at CNU were INVITED to speak at each of our Senate Meetings. The Senate minutes capture their messages- for example: Student Government Officers [on free assembly & speech] Student CEE Fund Officers [on responsible investing] Virginia Humanities Conference Leader [on research] Captain’s Log Editor-in-chief [on journalism] International Justice Mission Officers [on ending slavery]
POWERPOINT SCHEMA This PowerPoint is organized to demonstrate the various teams and committees of the SENATE and their goals and accomplishments. The next slides show the AD HOC COMMITTEES and detail each groups’ charges, methods, and results. The overall message is one of shared communication, consideration, and cooperation, leading to consensus. Finally- the faculty Senate is a tremendous collegial body of hard-working idealists and pragmatists! CNU is part of their DNA and they are a wonderful group!
Administrator Evaluation In accordance with AAUP recommendations, the Faculty Senate proposes creating a Task Force comprised of administrators, faculty and staff charged with developing a process and procedures for the regular evaluation of administrators. These are intended to foster stronger communication between the faculty and administration and to support the professional development of our administrators.
“Banned from Campus” Sub-Committee ReportOctober 2012 “Banned from Campus” Sub-Committee ReportOctober 2012 I have spoken with Dean Hughes several times over the past month about the Senate’s concerns regarding students removed from the classroom. Here are his responses in regard to our many questions: In regard to how a faculty member will be notified if a student has been removed from a class (i.e., suspended), he wrote: “Basically, I'll send a rather bland email to the effect of "Colleagues, I am writing to let you know that XYZ student is no longer enrolled in your class. Please check your class roster in the coming days to verify this change for your class." It will be a little different than the ones I send when I expect a student to return (those I usually copy the student, and I ask the faculty member to work with them to catch them up). Typically this happens no more than 4x during any given semester.” In regard to a student who is “banned” from campus, that is, removed administratively in advance of a hearing, he wrote: “Now, for an interim suspension (we very rarely do this), I would use similar language but say "the student will not be attending your class for the foreseeable future" or words to that effect. In these instances, the faculty would not be able to work with the student b/c that student is likely seen as a threat to the community (thus putting the faculty member at risk, too).” When I followed up with him on the issue of whether or not a faculty member could elect, if he/she was willing, to work with a student who had been removed, Dean Hughes stated that “I think that issue can be resolved on a case by case basis. […] I think it really just requires a follow-up b/t the faculty member and me regarding what they're thinking and what knowledge I can share with them. Each case is unique but we certainly have to be prepared for any eventuality.” Other important points related to this issue: Dean Hughes says that faculty can and should be notified about students removed from their classes effective immediately. He stated that this policy is already in place this semester, and he has notified CHECS that if an interim suspension is issued, he wants that information right away so that he can notify faculty. Only faculty who have a suspended student enrolled in class will receive an email notification. Stated differently, an instructor who had a student in class in a previous semester will not be notified of that student being removed/suspended. Dean Hughes is unsure as to whether or not a removed/suspended student still has access to Scholar, IDEA evaluations, etc. He said he would look into this issue and reply soon. Respectfully submitted,Brian M. Puaca
Child Care/FMLA The Faculty Senate recommends that the University implement a child care program similar to that of ODU and begin to develop a long-term action for implementation beginning in AY 13-14. In addition, the Senate has worked with the Provost to clarify the FMLA policies, particularly as they apply to adoption and childbirth; these clarifications will appear on the Provost's website by the beginning of AY 13-14.
Constitution and By-Laws The Faculty Senate completed a thorough review of the Senate Constitution and By-Laws and approved the following major changes:As of next year, the two At-Large SEC positions will become the Parliamentarian and Handbook liaison, and the Vice President will oversee elections; It shall be the obligation of the Faculty Senate President and SEC to prepare an annual budget and submit it to the Provost's Office by September of each academic year.
Digital Measures Enhancements INITIAL CONCERNS IDENTIFIED 1. Add “VIEW” option when in the “EDIT”, “COPY” “DELETE” mode in each section. 2. At a minimum, Publish space and character limits AT each relevant point where limits exist. [Note- evidently these limits differ at various drop down menu options AND in the upload file capacity, too. The space limitation constrains faculty from submitting PPT, films, large text files, music etc. at pertinent points in the activities report.] 3. Remove ALL space limitations in ADDENDUM- 4. Certain sections “hide” relevant names and titles of uploaded files. These file names should be visible and ALSO should appear on the printed EVAL 6 document. They do not. 5. Names of the categories on the activities report, EVAL 6, do not match or coordinate well with the Digital Measures categories. For example, a conference attended in EVAL 6 is a professional development activity. But in DM Presentations and Professional Meetings attended should be differentiated so a faculty who ATTENDS, and also PRESENTS is not constrained by ITEM B 4a. which is entitled ONLY “professional meetings”. 6. Editing of previous entries, to update status of paper, project or research results in an error messages such as: “characters exceed space limitations please limit to X characters” YET this error message is an EX POST FACTO violation of the DM rules on limitations of characters. That is, if I want to enter a date into the field where it asks WHEN the article is PUBLISHED, DM asks me to remove the actual abstract description as it is too long according to the “New” restrictions. 7. Remove space limitation on TITLE of paper! We who hyphenate are lost! 8. In Service, if selecting “OTHER” and entering the custom name of service [for example “Day of Service”] it fails to display anything under the Columns “Name of Committee” and “Committee Type”. 9. We cannot see for ourselves the actual view readers would see of many types of uploaded filessuch as imbedded PPT, and multi-media files. CURES AND IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED 1. VIEW option added 2. Space and character limits were BOTH increased to maximum permitted by DM and published so faculty can view any limits in special sections 3. ADDENDUM space limit increased to maximum of DM 4. File names now are visible on line and in printed version 5. Names and categories aligned to coordinate with EVAL 6 6. Updates to prior entries are now possible WITHOUT error message that space limits were exceeded 7. Removed space limits on TITLES of PAPERS 8. SERVICE section improved to permit entry of description of service 9. View of reader and view of DM author of entries is now aligned IN ADDITION: The default dates for DM have been set to our ACADEMIC YEAR, rather than the CALENDAR YEAR.
Faculty SenateSalary Increase Subcommittee • Using Survey Monkey, the Faculty Senate Salary Increase Subcommittee, Jamie Martin, chair, RaoufSelim, and Laurie Hunter, created and dispersed a survey to evaluate all faculty members’ opinions regarding distribution of future salary increases.
Faculty Salary Increase Survey Results (N=192) 45.8% in favor of Option 1
Responses from 16 faculty members who choose “performance based only” option
Narrative responses from faculty who responded to perfomance based only option • “There should also be a bonus pool paid on a one-off basis with merit as the key criterion.” • “Dean's discretion based on changing needs of univ and academia” • “years of seniority plus average the years (performance in) that there hase been no merit pay.” • “time without an increase should enter into the calculation---i.e. recent hires have only gone several years without increases, while many faculty have gone much longer.”
Handbook Changes- Importance and Priority The Senate responsibility to review and approve proposed handbook changes is an annual event. This Senate chose to engage in dialogue with authors of several significant Handbook changes to improve understanding of the rationale of proposed changes. We also changed our internal By-Laws to create a new SEC officer role. This emphasizes our acknowledgment of the significance of every HANDBOOK change that affects CNU faculty, and the need to evaluate the consequences of the changes.
IDEA Representatives from the Faculty Senate met with faculty members concerned about the IDEA student evaluations, especially their statistical validity and their weight in faculty evaluations. All of these concerns were conveyed to the administration, and the IDEA Task Force is currently working to address them. The Senate voted to approve a new STANDING COMMITTEE: Faculty Development
LLC to LLAC Subcommittee Report • Up-coming SACS 5-year review & report from the LL Assessment Task Force were catalysts for discussions of assessment • Assessment of the LLCC (Foundations & Areas of Inquiry) focus of discussion • LLC & UCC have a working draft of assessment objectives for 7 As of I • Faculty and administrators have drafted proposed modifications to the LLCC • CNU is in the process of reviewing and revising assessment procedures • Once the new assessment regime is in place, the Handbook language should be updated and a diagram of the process included • Special thanks to Diane Catanzaro and Sharon Rowley for sharing their committee’s progress with the Senate Committee Members: Jana Adamitis, Stephanie Bardwell, Linda Manning
Religious Dialogue & Diversity The committee recommended changing the name of the committee to “Religious Dialogue and Diversity” in order to focus attention on dialogue, inter and intra faith, and to explore existing forums that promote such dialogue. Dialogue is a positive act that leads to understanding whereas tolerance is a passive stance that does not necessarily entail inter and intra faith understanding. The committee moved to focus on strengthening already existing forums of religious dialogue and promote future dialogue that explores religious understanding and representation of diverse religious groups. The committee identified several campus groups engaged in religious activities, some of which focus on inter faith dialogue and diversity and others of which tend to focus on intra faith dialogue with less emphasis on diversity. Examples of intra faith groups are Hillel and Intervarsity. Examples of inter faith groups are the Rumi Foundation, Faiths Seeking Understanding, and Scriptural Reasoning. Suggestions for promoting future dialogue include an interfaith tea and a scholarly symposium featuring Dr. Ken Rose and Dr. Amos Yong discussing religious pluralism. Dr. Rose just published a book on religious pluralism and Dr. Yong is a respected scholar from another university.
Curricular Reviews Undertaken by Senate The Senate review of curricular changes began with an unusual step in the Fall ‘12. We asked for the opportunity to review and vote on a program which had by-passed our review process in the prior year. We invited representatives to discuss the EE degree program and thus ensured the correct process was followed for degree programs. Other reviews and approvals of curricular matters proceeded on target with the approved University process by which we received matters after colleges and UCC or LCC sent them to us. Cooperation with Carol Safko and keeping an ear to the grapevine were helpful to ensure the integrity of the process. Our interest in the process and outcome of curricular change proposals is one of the central concerns of the Faculty Senate.
Foundations related changes Imbedding Economic Literacy into Foundations [3 hrs]- courses to be reviewed next year; with requirement to be effective Fall 2014… AND Logical Reasoning [3 hrs] into the Foundations and eliminates the AIIF from the AofI; courses TBD next year; effective fall 2014. Each is not yet submitted to the Senate. Math 131- added as choice effective fall 2013. SENATE APPROVED in APRIL.
This Senate's Legacy is our system of METHODS & GOALS and OPEN DOOR to Students’ and faculty ideas
Addendum: Senate Memo to the BAC 9/21 CHRISTOPHER NEWPORT UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE September 21, 2012 Statement of the Faculty Senate, 2012-2013 This statement presents the consensus of the Christopher Newport University Faculty Senate related to recommended priorities for this educational academy in view of economic and financial constraints within the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Nation. The Faculty Senate firmly believes that the intellectual freedom and sanctity of our faculty is essential to the continued success of our university, particularly as we execute our blueprint and develop into a first-rate academic institution. In accordance with learning outcomes specified by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), our priorities based upon the university's existing mission and goals. We adhere to the principle of mutual support and desire the university to support faculty so that the faculty may support university principles of excellence as effectively as possible. A stellar liberal learning university must have outstanding teaching and scholarship in the classroom, and we believe this is contingent upon faculty belief that we are well-supported and appreciated by the university administration. We continue to believe this is the case and wish to continue in full partnership with all university colleagues. Faculty Contributions in 2008-2012 The Faculty Senate wishes to emphasize that university instructional staff have made many contributions and have demonstrated exceptional support of the university during the last three academic years when cutbacks were necessitated across the university →Faculty members have participated willingly in making suggestions for more efficiency in the curriculum →Faculty members have agreed to teach larger numbers of students in many classes →Faculty members have willingly restructured degree requirements in several colleges and departments →Faculty members have gone without merit pay or monetary increase in salary for the last five years. →Faculty members have consented in the expansion of contingent faculty appointments In short, the Senate highlights that all faculty members have been willing to do more with less in recognition of the fact that we are all in this challenging economic environment together, and faculty will continue to do so in 2012-2013.
Senate Memo to the BAC 9/2012 Senate Priorities for 2012-2013 The Faculty Senate would like to acknowledge and express its collective appreciation that BAC actions in the past few years have supported our faculty colleagues across the curriculum. The Faculty Senate continues to support the objectives laid out in previous memos to the Budget Advisory Committee and reiterates those priorities for 2012-2013. The Faculty Senate requests that the administration continue its customary practice to make only necessary cuts and to do so in such a way so as not to inhibit the faculty’s ability to perform the core mission of the university. The Faculty Senate further expresses its expectation of continued dialogue and consultation regarding any cutbacks that may be necessary as we move forward during the ongoing budget challenges. The Faculty Senate expects that all budget decisions made will continue to honor the policies and procedures of the University Handbook as approved by the University Board of Visitors and the University President. The Faculty Senate, as a representative body for the University faculty, first wishes to maintain all current faculty lines (tenured, probationary and restricted) as previously allocated by the Provost of the University. In conjunction with support of faculty lines, the Senate firmly supports the preservation of University programs; this is to support our students who have chosen this University for specific programs and majors, and to the faculty that were recruited for specific responsibilities within our curriculum. The Faculty Senate firmly believes that in all future academic hires the University is best served by hiring tenure-track faculty rather than restricted faculty. In the event that the University sees fit in the short term to make use of restricted positions the Faculty Senate desires the administration to convert these lines from restricted status to tenure-track at the earliest possible time. The Faculty Senate unconditionally supports the base 4-3 teaching load for probationary and tenured faculty members. The Faculty Senate also supports the current course load reductions that are guaranteed for probationary faculty and available by application to tenured faculty. Finally, the Faculty Senate encourages the University to change the nominal teaching load for all probationary and tenured faculty from a 4-3 to a 3-3 as soon as possible. The Faculty Senate unequivocally supports the continued investment of University funds in support of faculty professional development. If cuts to this area become mandatory, the Senate requests cutbacks in the following order: 1. Sabbaticals 2. Grants for faculty development (Faculty Development Grants, Dossier Grants, and Faculty Incentive Grants). 3. Travel for conferences and research
