MEETING OF THE FACULTY FORUM
October 22, 2002
The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Professor
Newell Stultz, at 4:05 PM to consider again the issue of proposed changes to
faculty governance. Professor
There was discussion about whether the activities of existing committees would be suspended before the faculty vote on the new governance structure. The chair of the FEC Professor Beeman, assured the faculty that nothing would be changed until the new committee structure is properly authorized and would begin July 1 of 2003.
Members of the current AMC made a presentation endorsing the elimination of the present committee and redistributing its duties to the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) and its Faculty Diversity Subcommittee or the Tenure Promotions and Appointment (TPA) committee. On the whole, they felt that the new structure preserves the functions of the AMC. Where they differ is that the proposed changes would not provide the same degree of oversight as the AMC. Presently they review all negative decisions made by CONFRAT on women and under represented minorities. The proposed change would review negative decisions only if the affected faculty petitioned the grievance committee – thus placing the onus on the faculty member. They also pointed out that faculty diversity depends, in part, on the rate of advancement and that the time it takes a faculty member to develop the necessary academic requirements for advancement depends upon communication and mentoring from senior faculty. Thus they believe that review of the policies facilitating advancement should be included in the charge to the new FAC.
In ensuing discussions, the importance of reviewing all negative promotions without petitions was supported by a number of faculty members. The pros and cons of the proposed and old structure for providing oversight for tenure and advancement decisions received energetic discussion.
The faculty members were reminded by Professor Beeman, that amendments can not be made at the faculty forum and that their amendments should be formally submitted for consideration by the FEC as soon as possible so that they could be properly introduced at the next faculty meeting. Professor Gretchen Schultz (French) asked whether there have been other proposed amendments? Professor Nancy Armstrong (English) replied that the task force made changes to the original proposal that were based on individual discussions and negotiations, therefore issues that could have resulted in amendments were resolved in the revised proposals.
A number of the faculty expressed concerns about whether the rights of women faculty would be protected under the proposed changes. Professor Elaine Bearer (Bio Med Pathology and Lab Med) would like to see the Committee on the Status of Women maintained. Concern was also raised whether the lecturer track would be affected by the new changes.
In a related matter, the composition of minorities and women on the new committees was discussed. Professor Shultz expressed her view that there should be specific language that spells out the ratio of women and minorities on each committee. Professor Savage felt that this suggestion would undermine the confidence in the FEC to preserve diversity. The two could not agree on what effect a fixed ratio would have if in the future the composition of the faculty changed.
Professor Peter Richardson (Engineering), faculty parliamentarian, informed the forum that the faculty rules are not reflected in present proposed procedures of the new Grievance committee. For example there is no mention of notification of the person against whom grievance is made. He emphasized that these are not trivial issues. It is important to have procedures that people can follow to minimize human error. Grievance cases have gone to court where the court criticized the perceived lack of adherence to any recognizable appropriate process. Professor Armstrong replied there can be too many procedures – the grievance committee procedure is based common sense. Professor Savage added that the members of the standing committee would be well schooled in appropriate procedures.
Another issue that engendered considerable discussion was the question of whether TPA members would get to vote for candidates seeking a higher rank than themselves (voting out of rank). Professor Armstrong observed that presently CONFRAT decides how it wants to handle voting out of rank each year. The new language for the TPA would codify rank-specific voting for promotion. Professor Richardson noted that there is a precedent for voting out of rank as when the University appoints an associate professor as department chair. Associate Dean of the Faculty Bill Crossgrove said that departments whose chairs are associate professor formed committees of full professors to handle the promotion of associate professors to full professor.
Professor Alexander Levitsky (Slavic Languages) raised the issue of potential conflicts of interest of the APC membership and expressed concern that the larger departments might disregard the interests of the less powerful. Professor Savage replied that questions of conflicts of interest are important. Members of committee would be chosen from faculty who have acknowledged high ethical standards.
The forum closed with an outline of how the process will proceed from here. There will be a great deal of re-writing before November faculty meeting. The FEC is proposing to spread out the various motions over November and December and will bring up the non-controversial items first. Professor Richardson reminded the faculty of the rules governing motions presented at the faculty meeting. A motion will be introduced; any amendments will then be introduced and voted upon. Discussion will then resume with original motion and then the vote taken. The importance of submitting proposed amendments to the FEC before the meeting was emphasized in order to make discussion more orderly and to refine the language of the amendments so as to minimize discussion about language per se. The last day to submit amendments to the FEC is the 19th of November – i.e., the last FEC meeting that could be scheduled before the December meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:49 PM
Respectfully submitted
Professor Fredric Silverblatt (Medicine)
Secretary to the Faculty Forum
Correction to minutes of the prior forum: Page 2, first paragraph after the listing of administrative boards should be amended as follows:
The inter-relationships of these
committees and their related subcommittees were displayed by Professor Savage
on an organization chart. Taking a
question from the floor, Professor Savage stated that TPA would be composed of
12 faculty members and be chaired by a faculty member and have
as a member an ex-officio administrator. A sub committee would prepare briefs
in case members had to recuse themselves. Addressing concerns expressed by the
faculty, Professor Savage stated the task force believes that there should be
one committee given oversight for all curricular matters, but that individual
sub- committees might be created to deal with undergraduate and graduate
curricular matters. He noted that the Provost would make appointments to URC.
The task force did not consider making changes to the