Brown University Task Force on Faculty Governance Minutes of Meetings

Minutes of The Task Force on Faculty Governance

November 7, 2002

Attending: Nancy Amstrong, Russell Church, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Richard Fishman, Peter Gromet, Rajiv Vohra, John Savage, and Michael White.

Guests: Bill Beeman

1. The meeting opened at 1:05pm and ended at 3pm.

2. The Minutes of October 31 were approved without change.

3. Changes in Motions 2 and 8 Concerning URC and FEC

   At the Faculty meeting on 11/5/02 a change was made in Item a. of the Method of Election for the Academic Priorities Committee (APC) to have slates of faculty candidate be prepared by the FEC in consultation with the Provost. At our meeting we agreed to change the method of election for the University Resources Committee (URC), the only other committee that involves the Provost in the nomination process, to make it identical to that for the APC.

   We also changed the method of election of undergraduate, graduate and medical students to URC so that ballots are prepared in consultation with the Provost.

   We also changed Item h. under the Charge to the FEC to make it conform to the new role of the FEC and the Provost in the preparation of ballots for APC and URC.

4. Change in 7 Concering the Committee on Grievance

   Between meetings we agreed to change Item l. in the Procedures of the Committee on Grievance to replace "a department or administrative unit" with "a party to a grievance" so that the statement reads

   l. Any failure of a party to a grievance to act in accordance with the terms to these provisions shall be referred to the Provost for final action. If the Provost is a party to the grievance, the matter shall be referred to the President for final action.

5. Change in Motion 4 Concerning the Graduate Council

   We replaced "Committee on Nominations" in the Method of Election section of the Graduate Council with "Faculty Executive Committee."

6. Discussion of Pending Legislation

   We had discussions about the responses we might make to proposed amendments to our proposed TPA. It was argued that a person should never sit on a committee who might judge their case. We discussed whether asking full professors to represent the percentages of women and minorities in our tenured faculty would unduly burden the full professors, concluding that it would not. We discussed the impact of an amendment requiring certain percentages of women and minorities on TPA, concluding that it would make it much more difficult to assemble mail ballots to ensure that these percentages are always maintained. We noted that extending such quotas to all important faculty committees would make the work of FEC very much more difficult. We note that we require that FEC report each year on the makeup by protected groups of each committee as a check on their work.

   We agreed that it is important in introducing TPA to say that it is designed to strengthen faculty governance by assembling a committee of colleagues who are best qualified to make recommendations on the faculty advancement. Faculty members with broad experience inside and outside the University of recognizably good judgment and established record of achievement are needed to serve on this committee. To us this means that the committee should be populated by tenured full professors.

Submitted by
John E. Savage