1:00 pm
Beck rooms
Agenda
1. Sign in for quorum
2. Call to order
3. Communications from Interim Provost Dr. Karen Boroff
a. Responses to outstanding resolutions
i. Change to the Faculty Guide Article 3.2.a – December 2016
ii. Change to the Faculty Guide Article 3.2.c – December 2016
iii. DAVA Concentration in Political Science and Public Affairs – December 2016
iv. Endorsement of Program Review Report on Museum Professions – December 2016
v. Graduate Certificate in Finance – December 2016
vi. New Minor in Medieval and Renaissance Studies – December 2016
vii. Resolution to bring the University Core into the Faculty Guide – December 2016
viii. Revised Program Review Submission Guidelines – December 2016
b. Overview of Partnership with Wiley
i. Powerpoint presentation by Christopher Cuccia, Ed.D., Associate Provost for Academic Affairs
4. Approval of agenda
5. Approval of the draft minutes of the December 9 meeting
6. Executive Committee report
7. Reports of standing and special committees
a. Academic Policy Committee report
i. Motion:
The current catalog language regarding tracking a major be changed as follows, to decrease the number of credits a student may earn before declaring a major:
Tracking a Major: Students who seek admission to a major for which they are not initially eligible may track that major under advisement until they qualify for admission by completing required courses and earning required grades within the stipulated time frame. In the event that they do not qualify for admission to their preferred program after earning 60 credits, they will need to work with their adviser to evaluate other options. A major must be officially declared by the point that the student has earned 68 credits.
b. Compensation & Welfare Committee report
c. Faculty Development Committee report
d. Faculty Guide and Bylaws Committee report
i. FIRST reading of proposed change to Article 7.5.c.
MOTION: To replace the language of Article 7.5.c with
No faculty member with time reassigned (released) from teaching to research or administrative duties is eligible for teaching overload.
ii. FIRST reading of Provost suggested edits to approve changes to Article 3.2.c.
MOTION: To approve the edits suggested by the Provost to the language of Article 3.2.c that was approved at the Dec. 2016 Senate meeting. The edits are in bold.
In the event of a decision not to renew a probationary appointment, the department will provide evidence to the dean substantiating its recommendation in concurrence with the review and written evaluation process articulated in 3.2.b. Should the Dean decide to overrule a department’s recommendation to renew a probationary appointment, the Dean will provide evidence substantiating that decision. In the case of a decision not to renew a probationary appointment, the applicant has the right to appeal from the department, and, in the library, from the committee to the dean, and also from the dean to the provost. The faculty member shall be informed by the dean of the decision in writing, and shall be advised of the reasons which contributed to that decision. If the faculty member so requests, the reasons given for nonrenewal of an appointment shall be confirmed in writing. In cases of denial of an application for tenure, see article 5.
iii. SECOND READING of proposed change to Article 5.1.d to include a second sentence (highlighted) that clarifies that only professors can vote for promotion to professor. This is consistent with Article 5.4.a that addresses the issue at the College level.
MOTION: To amend Article 5.1.d to include a second sentence.
All applications for promotion to the ranks of associate professor, professor, and for tenure are initially submitted to the department and, after departmental review and recommendation, to the dean. In departmental review, all tenured professors vote on promotion to tenure; only full professors may vote on promotion to professor.
iv. SECOND READING of a motion to add language to Article 5.5.d that addressed the situation where there are no or few professors in a department.
MOTION: To amend Article 5.5.d to read (the bold sentences are additions to 5.d).
Department guidelines for promotion/tenure that include a statement of research and publication expectations, must be committed to writing after formal departmental approval, and copies of same must be provided to all probationary and tenured faculty at the time of appointment. Such guidelines shall include guidelines for voting procedures for promotion to full professor when there are no faculty of that rank in the department. Only full professors may vote on promotions to full professor. When there are no faculty of that rank in the department, specific procedures shall be developed to address this situation and included in the department guidelines for promotion and tenure.
e. Library Committee report
f. Program Review Committee report
g. University Core Curriculum Committee report
i. Motion:
Whereas: The Office of the Provost has recently formed and charged a new Core Director search committee with no elected faculty representatives;
Whereas: On 11/11/16 the Senate resolved that “the Senate [will] collaborate with the Provost’s Office to bring the Core into the Faculty Guide” to ensure shared Core governance;
Whereas: Former Provost Robinson’s 12/21/16 response welcomed “[a]ny concrete proposals for modification of the administration and the staffing of the core . . .”;
Whereas: The Senate’s University Core Curriculum Committee is charged with making recommendations to the Senate on matters relating to the design, revision, administration, and implementation of the Core Curriculum. (Faculty Senate Bylaw XIX.f);
Whereas: Signature Course Curriculum Committee members are elected Core faculty representatives;
Be it resolved that the University Core Curriculum Committee of the Faculty Senate and the Signature Course Curriculum Committee each elect a representative that will join the Core Director Search Committee as soon as possible.
8. Committees with no reports
a. Academic Facilities Committee
b. Admissions Committee
c. Calendar Committee
d. Faculty Grievance Committee
e. Graduate Studies Committee
f. Instructional Technology Committee
g. Intellectual Property Task Force
h. Nominations, Elections, and Appointments Committee
i. University Completion Committee
9. Committee Motions
a. Academic Policy Committee
i. Motion:
The current catalog language regarding tracking a major be changed as follows, to decrease the number of credits a student may earn before declaring a major:
Tracking a Major: Students who seek admission to a major for which they are not initially eligible may track that major under advisement until they qualify for admission by completing required courses and earning required grades within the stipulated time frame. In the event that they do not qualify for admission to their preferred program after earning 60 credits, they will need to work with their adviser to evaluate other options. A major must be officially declared by the point that the student has earned 68 credits.
b. Faculty Guide and Bylaws Committee
i. FIRST reading of proposed change to Article 7.5.c.
MOTION: To replace the language of Article 7.5.c with
No faculty member with time reassigned (released) from teaching to research or administrative duties is eligible for teaching overload.
ii. FIRST reading of Provost suggested edits to approve changes to Article 3.2.c.
MOTION: To approve the edits suggested by the Provost to the language of Article 3.2.c that was approved at the Dec. 2016 Senate meeting. The edits are in bold.
In the event of a decision not to renew a probationary appointment, the department will provide evidence to the dean substantiating its recommendation in concurrence with the review and written evaluation process articulated in 3.2.b. Should the Dean decide to overrule a department’s recommendation to renew a probationary appointment, the Dean will provide evidence substantiating that decision. In the case of a decision not to renew a probationary appointment, the applicant has the right to appeal from the department, and, in the library, from the committee to the dean, and also from the dean to the provost. The faculty member shall be informed by the dean of the decision in writing, and shall be advised of the reasons which contributed to that decision. If the faculty member so requests, the reasons given for nonrenewal of an appointment shall be confirmed in writing. In cases of denial of an application for tenure, see article 5.
iii. SECOND READING of proposed change to Article 5.1.d to include a second sentence (highlighted) that clarifies that only professors can vote for promotion to professor. This is consistent with Article 5.4.a that addresses the issue at the College level.
MOTION: To amend Article 5.1.d to include a second sentence.
All applications for promotion to the ranks of associate professor, professor, and for tenure are initially submitted to the department and, after departmental review and recommendation, to the dean. In departmental review, all tenured professors vote on promotion to tenure; only full professors may vote on promotion to professor.
iv. SECOND READING of a motion to add language to Article 5.5.d that addressed the situation where there are no or few professors in a department.
MOTION: To amend Article 5.5.d to read (the bold sentences are additions to 5.d).
Department guidelines for promotion/tenure that include a statement of research and publication expectations, must be committed to writing after formal departmental approval, and copies of same must be provided to all probationary and tenured faculty at the time of appointment. Such guidelines shall include guidelines for voting procedures for promotion to full professor when there are no faculty of that rank in the department. Only full professors may vote on promotions to full professor. When there are no faculty of that rank in the department, specific procedures shall be developed to address this situation and included in the department guidelines for promotion and tenure.
c. University Core Curriculum Committee
i. Motion:
Whereas: The Office of the Provost has recently formed and charged a new Core Director search committee with no elected faculty representatives;
Whereas: On 11/11/16 the Senate resolved that “the Senate [will] collaborate with the Provost’s Office to bring the Core into the Faculty Guide” to ensure shared Core governance;
Whereas: Former Provost Robinson’s 12/21/16 response welcomed “[a]ny concrete proposals for modification of the administration and the staffing of the core . . .”;
Whereas: The Senate’s University Core Curriculum Committee is charged with making recommendations to the Senate on matters relating to the design, revision, administration, and implementation of the Core Curriculum. (Faculty Senate Bylaw XIX.f);
Whereas: Signature Course Curriculum Committee members are elected Core faculty representatives;
Be it resolved that the University Core Curriculum Committee of the Faculty Senate and the Signature Course Curriculum Committee each elect a representative that will join the Core Director Search Committee as soon as possible.
10. Old Business
11. New Business
12. Communications
13. Adjournment