Brown University Task Force on Faculty Governance Minutes of Meetings

Minutes of The Task Force on Faculty Governance

August 28, 2002

Attending: Nancy Amstrong, Russell Church, Richard Fishman, Peter Gromet, John Savage, and Michael White.

Absent: Anne Fausto-Sterling and Rajiv Vohra,

Guests: Prof. Bill Beeman, Dean Richard Besdine

1. The meeting started at 4:15pm and ended at 7:15pm

2. We approved the Minutes of our August 22 meeting with a few changes.

   We added "The Chair of the committee shall be a faculty member." to the beginning of the Chair and Support Section of our description of UCC.

   We examined the role of the large Executive Committee of UCC. We decided to state explicitly that its role is to set the agenda for UCC. Since this role can be handled by the Chair, Vice Chair, Deans and Registrar, we decided that to limit its size by not having students on it.

3. We discussed and approved a draft version of a letter to the Faculty providing them with our latest recommendations. The letter was sent to the Provost for his comments which arrived within a few minutes. His changes were added to the letter (which was sent on 8/29/02).

4. Division of Biology and Medicine and Faculty Governance

   Dean Besdine joined us to discuss governance in the Division of Biology and Medicine. He began by advising us that we use the phrase "Brown Medical School" in our minutes when we should use "Division of Biology and Medicine" which contains the Medical School as a unit.

   Dean Besdine told us that internal and external reviews have been started of the Medical School to bring it to the next level. He reviewed for us the governance structure of the Division. It has the following units:

   General Assembly Has been inactive for many years

   Committees of the Biomedical Faculty Council

   • Medical Curriculum Committee
   • Biology Curriculum Committee
   • Graduate Medical Education Committee
   • Medical Committee on Academic Standing
   • Appeal and Grievance Committee

   The council and its subcommittees are working well.

   He noted that 1/3 of the biology faculty have their salaries paid by the office of the Dean of the Faculty and 2/3 by the Division. He expects that the Blueprint Process will examine the utility of this arrangement The current system denies some biology faculty the opportunity to participate in the research incentive system that has been created in the Division and has created salary and benefit inequities that the Division has tried to equalize.

   The Medical Faculty Executive Committee was noted to report to FEC, rather than within the Division, an arrangement that should be reconsidered.

   We also discussed the Faculty Committee on Medical Faculty Appointments. Dean Besdine believes that the representation of biology faculty on this committee is too small and that of the campus-based faculty is too large. He will engage the Associate Dean for Medical Faculty Affairs, the MFEC and the clinical department chairs in a process to consider changes in the makeup of this Faculty committee in the near term. Nominations to this committee, now the responsibility of the Committee on Nominations, will be transfered to the FEC.

   Dean Besdine stated that he believes UCC should have on it the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Biology since the committee will handle undergraduate biology courses. We agreed with this recommendation.

   We also discussed the role of FAC in salary studies with Dean Besdine and he suggested that FAC should limit its attention to salaries outside of the Division of Biology and Medicine.

5. After a brief discussions we confirmed a previous decision to have the work of the current Committee on Academic Standing be assigned to the College Council. We decided that the Standing Committee on the Academic Code should stand by itself (it reports to the Dean of the College) because its responsibilities include enforcement of rules for all students. We confirm our previous decision to recommend changes in the Faculty Rules concerning this committee.

6. We agreed to change the name of the Faculty Personnel Committee to the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC).

7. We debated where to put the Lectureship Committee as well as responsibility for management of faculty travel funds. We decided to recommend that these and other responsibilities be assigned to an administrative advisory board chaired by the Dean of the Faculty. (The Dean of the Faculty accepts this recommendation and proposes that it be called the Advisory Committee (Board?) on Faculty Development. It would also handle selection of nominees for national fellowships as well as advise on the allocation of internal faculty development funds.)

8. We acknowledged the Provost's agreement to have a faculty vice chair for each of APC and URC. We decided to recommend that vice chairs be chosen from and by the committee members elected by the Faculty.

9. We again discussed whether or not to limit membership in TPA to full professors, again agreeing to this limitation. TPA is designed to assure that departmental criteria and standards adhere to Brown's high standards. Once they have been approved, TPA's role is to assure that departmental recommendations meet these standards and criteria. The role of TPA is not to apply area-specific knowledge. It is to make sure the standards and criteria meet Brown's high standards and that departmental recommendations are consistent with these criteria and standards. For these reasons we recommend limiting faculty membership to full professors. We want to avail ourselves of the expertise and demonstrated high standards of full professors. Associate professors have a say in which of their colleauges at the level of assistant professor should be recommened for promotion using their area-specific knowledge.

10. We discussed the role of a dean in policing faculty searches, a role which currently is the responsibility of faculty members on AAMC. We decided to recommend that if departments disagree with the policy implications of a decision by such a dean that FAC be called upon for a policy recommendation.

11. The status of the Creative Arts Council as a faculty committee was discussed. We agreed to recommend to the Provost that it become an academic unit, perhaps a center, reporting to the Provost. We also recommend that the chair or director of this unit be appointed by the Provost, which is normal.

12. We decided to recommend that the Research Administrative Advisory Board subsume the work of the following committees
    • Biosafety Committee
    • Radiation Safety Committee
    • Laboratory Safety Committee

    as well as responsibility for adhering to rules and regulations of all regulatory agencies to which Brown conforms.

13. We agreed that some form of compensation should be provided to faculty members sitting on the most demanding new committees and also to Chairs. (This was discussed with the Dean of the Faculty on 8/29/02 but has not been resolved.)

14. We explored ways to make our recommendations known to and understood by the Faculty. We will participate in these events:
    • Overview at Special Faculty Meeting on September 3
    • Faculty Forum on September 10
    • Discussion of draft formal language on September 24
    • Presentation of draft formal language at Faculty Meeting on October 1
    • Formal vote by Faculty on November 5

    We agreed to add slides to the presentation being prepared for the September 3 meeting that identify reservations that faculty colleagues have expressed about our recommendations.

Submitted by
John E. Savage