Faculty Assembly
THE FACULTY ASSEMBLY
THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA:
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TUESDAY MARCH 27, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 3:35pm with 18 members present.
The first item on the agenda was to approve the minutes from the February 27, 2001 Faculty Assembly meeting.
The next order of business was the presentation of reports from Administrative Officers, namely, Dean of University Libraries, Connie McCarthy, and Provost Cell.
Dean of University Libraries, Connie McCarthy, began with a report on the status of the ongoing library renovations. She reported that everything is proceeding well and that the new fabrics, furniture and carpeting have already been selected. Dean McCarthy stated that the renovated library will have a more rational array of the location of the various collections and a dedicated "multimedia" center that will house scanners, films, and computer facilities.
She also noted that even though the collections will be moved around throughout the next few months, they will be continuously available during this period. Dean McCarthy then requested faculty input on how best to inform the William and Mary community about the changes. Suggestions included the use of Faculty Digest as well as a website. She concluded her report with a description of the many subscriptions to on-line journals that the library has now acquired.
Provost Cell presented a brief summary of the current budget crisis. She mentioned the possibility that there might be a special session of the Virginia legislature to deal with budget issues, but warned that the current budget situation remains unresolved. On a different topic, the Provost then reported that applications from prospective students continued to be robust, both in quantity (up by approximately 6% from last year) and quality.
The next item of business was the series of reports from the standing committees.
Academic Affairs: There was no report from the Committee on Academic Affairs.
Faculty Affairs: Katherine Kulick, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, reported on the status of the many different issues being considered by this committee.
(1) Intellectual Property Policy: It was reported that the subcommittee dealing with this issue had nearly completed its work. The plan is to have a draft of the full policy by the April Faculty Assembly meeting.
(2) The Faculty Development Plan: Katherine Kulick reported that the subcommittee working on the faculty development plan faced a formidable task in designing a plan for all stages of a faculty member's career, from "hire to retire." This requires an understanding of the programs that already exist at the College as well as knowledge of faculty career development plans that are in place and have been successful at other institutions. Moreover, that subcommittee of the Faculty Affairs Committee lost two of its members, leaving only three members. She reported that this subcommittee will not complete its work by the end of the academic year. She suggested that the work of this committee be continued next year, but that the committee be reconstituted not only with members of the Faculty Affairs Committee, but with other faculty members (from the Assembly and from the faculty at large) who wish to lend their expertise.
Katherine Kulick informed Assembly members that all documents currently being considered can be accessed on the Faculty Assembly Website.
(3) Consensual Amorous Relationship Policy: Having completed its work on the policy, Katherine Kulick stated that the current draft of CARP (previously circulated to Assembly members) was up for discussion. She reiterated that this was a discussion item only; no voting would take place at this meeting. The floor was then opened for discussion of the document.
Discussion points included:
* the time limits for reporting an alleged incident (2 vs. 4 years)
* whether the provision allowing the Provost to grant an exemption was reasonable
* the fact that it is impossible for a faculty member to remove a student from
a class; this is relevant because the draft policy stipulates that it is the
obligation of the faculty member to ensure that a student with whom he/she has
had a consensual amorous relationship must not be permitted to enroll in his/her
class
(4) Amendment to the Faculty Handbook regarding the role of "service" in evaluation procedures
Katherine Kulick briefly summarized the two proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook (Section III.B.2):
(1) The first was a change in the wording in the paragraph beginning "Throughout the College ..." (on page 15, paragraph 4) to read: " .... significant contribution to their fields, which must include research and scholarly activity and may include professional service; and responsible participation in College governance and service, which must include service to the College and may include professional service."
(2) The second proposed change was the removal of the last sentence in that same paragraph, that is, the sentence reading, "Each case shall be judged on its own merits and not on comparisons with past decisions."
The floor was then opened for discussion.
Dean Feiss informed the Faculty Assembly that he strongly opposed the second proposed change, namely, deleting the last sentence. He argued that it was very important that individuals with a grievance not be (even implicitly) encouraged to compare previous records to their own record. Removal of this sentence would help to preclude this possibility. Moreover, it was important that for tenure decisions each case be judged totally on its own merits, without comparison to other cases. He cited an example of a possible situation in which there were two candidates from the same department, one with one stellar dossier and another with a perfectly acceptable dossier. In this instance it was important that the stellar dossier not be used as a standard of comparison for the acceptable dossier. He argued that the last sentence makes it explicit that each case stand on its own merits and that therefore the sentence should be retained in the document.
Many Assembly members still had the general concern that it was impossible to "improve quality of the faculty" without referring to other cases. Following some discussion, it was determined that comparisons were not being made to individual decisions, but rather, to past standards.
It was then moved that the paragraph under discussion be divided into two paragraphs with the second paragraph beginning with the sentence, "In applying these criteria, ..." (line 5 of that paragraph) and that each paragraph be considered separately. This motion passed unanimously. The Faculty Assembly then voted unanimously in favor of approving the proposed changes to the first paragraph, but not to the second paragraph.
The second paragraph of the document was then referred back to the Faculty Affairs Committee for further consideration.
5. Post Tenure Review Policy: Discussion then turned to the Post Tenure Review policy. Katherine Kulick reported that the committee had three meetings that focused on this policy and that there were many points of view expressed at these meetings. She reported that the Committee was continuing to work on a document that could be brought for discussion at the April meeting.
COPAR: Alan Fuchs, Chair of COPAR, stated the committee met and discussed its role as a liaison with the Development Office.
Executive Committee: Bill O'Connell reported that the Executive Committee decided to invite Larry Beckhouse to the next Faculty Assembly meeting to discuss Title Nine compliance.
Given that there was no "Old Business," the next item on the agenda was "New Business."
David Lutzer suggested that the Faculty Assembly conduct a brief self-evaluation of the new organization in the form of a one page tool to be completed at the April meeting. Faculty Assembly members agreed with this idea.
George Greenia then reported on the March meeting of the Faculty Senate of Virginia. He discussed the following items that were on the FSV Agenda:
- Briefing from Karl Schilling, Deputy Director of SCHEV:
- General Assembly Bill to require faculty representation on BOVs: this bill failed in committee but will be reintroduced next year
- Faculty Senate Sponsorship of a Legislative Forum on Higher Education in Virginia to be held in Richmond in September or October of this year
- Domestic Partner Benefits: the resolution on Domestic Partner Benefits passed unanimously; local faculty senates were charged with communicating this resolution to their administrations for follow up and an action plan on each campus
- FSV for 2001-2002: given that George Greenia is completing his 3-year term on the W&M Faculty Assembly, two faculty need to be appointed to represent our interest on the Faculty Senate of Virginia
Bill O'Connell concluded this section of the meeting with a brief report on the Report of Institutional Effectiveness. He stated that the report from William and Mary was viewed very favorably by SCHEV.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 pm.
Margaret Saha
Secretary
