Faculty Assembly
THE FACULTY ASSEMBLY
THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA:
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TUESDAY NOVEMBER 28, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:37pm.
The first order of business was to approve the minutes from the September meeting. I. Administrative Reports. There were no reports from administrative officers, so the next order of business was to hear reports from the standing committees.
II. Reports from Standing Committees
A. The Academic Affairs Committee had nothing to report at this time.
B. The Faculty Affairs Committee, chaired by Katherine Kulick, had four main issues on which to report:
1. Review of Consensual Amorous Relations Policy.
Charged with a review of the consensual amorous relations policy, Katherine
Kulick reported that she organized a subcommittee of the Faculty Affairs Committee
to deal with this issue. She reported that this subcommittee already had several
meetings with the Provost and with Dick Williamson. The subcommittee hoped to
have a draft resolution for the January meeting of the full Faculty Assembly.
2. Faculty Development Program
The Faculty Affairs Committee was charged with producing a "faculty development
program" that addresses the needs of faculty throughout their career. A
subcommittee has also been created for this task and has already met and begun
work. The goal is to have a development plan drafted by the end of the academic
year.
3. Revised Resolution for the Faculty Senate of Virginia Regarding Domestic
Partner Benefits
Katherine Kulick briefly reviewed the history of the resolution sent to the
Faculty Senate of Virginia. Although the resolution was forwarded to the Senate
last year, nothing was done with it. A revised resolution was written by George
Greenia and approved unanimously by the Faculty Assembly. As soon as the supporting
documentation for the resolution is reviewed and finalized, it will be once
again forwarded to the Faculty Senate of Virginia.
4. Revised Intellectual Property Policy
A subcommittee for developing a revised intellectual property policy will also
be created. This is currently underway. Guidance on this issue will also be
sought from the broader university community.
C. Committee on Planning and Resources (COPAR)
Alan Fuchs, the chair of the committee, reported that it had met twice and had
been primarily concerned with rationalizing committee structures. For example,
the Faculty Compensation Board would continue in its present form but would
report to COPAR and the Faculty Assembly. COPAR is also looking into the role
of the Development Committee; there appears to be no reason for this committee
to continue, given that COPAR would be taking over its function and serving
as a liaison with the Development Office. Alan Fuchs also reported that his
committee had also begun discussions on fringe benefits and the financial aspects
of domestic partner benefits.
Following the report, Bill O'Connell stated that possible changes in the Faculty Assembly bylaws would be consolidated and considered in the spring all at one time.
D. Liaison Committee
1. There was then a brief report from Colleen Kennedy on the November Board of Visitors meeting. For the liaison committee, Ron Rapoport presented a report on the exit poll that he and his students conducted on election day; this was well received. Overall, it was reported to be an uneventful Board of Visitors meeting with many closed sessions.
2. George Greenia then presented a report on the Faculty Senate of Virginia (November 18, 2000) Meeting. He reported that there were 13 representatives from 10 institutions in attendance. The following items were discussed:
a. Merit Pay. State employees are potentially losing income given that merit pay raises do not take effect until December 1st of each year. Faculty should take the "high ground" in arguing for having the effective date of increases coincide with the beginning of the contract year for all state employees. No action was taken on this issue.
b. Institutional Performance Assessments (IPAs). SCHEV's requirement for reports on institutional effectiveness were discussed. The first five "trial" reports have been submitted from VCU, UVA, NSU, VSU, and GMU. George Greenia stressed that William and Mary needs to remain vigilant and insist upon Faculty Assembly involvement. Other universities generated the entire report without faculty input.
Dave Lutzer re-emphasized the importance of faculty involvement in the generation of these reports. Several faculty assembly members commented on the great cost in staff time of generating these reports.
c. General Assembly Bill Requiring Faculty representation on BOVs. Currently a bill is drafted, but it still lacks legislative sponsorship. Last year a bill was passed stating that one student may serve on each BOV and parity is sought for faculty. The Faculty Senate endorsed faculty representation. George Greenia suggested that William and Mary needs to alert friendly legislators that their support of this measure is needed. Although the Faculty Assembly never endorsed the idea previously, the Faculty Assembly now unanimously resolved to support this faculty representation on the BOV.
d. Attacks on Tenure. There was a general discussion on diversion of tenure eligible lines to instructor and adjunct staffing.
e. Domestic Partner Benefits. A resolution was proposed by William and Mary and was discussed with general support from those present. Faculty Senate representatives were to take the documents back to their home institutions for further discussion. A vote would not be taken until the next meeting.
f. Recommended Standards for Adjunct Faculty. The decision of the Radford Faculty Senate to protect and limit the use of adjunct faculty was discussed.
g. Virginia State University's problems of "shared governance." The Faculty Senate of Virginia can take no action on this matter.
Following George Greenia's report there was a general discussion of the Institutional Performance Assessment reports. There was general agreement that such reports commanded an enormous amount of time, effort, and resources perhaps at the expense of the educational component of the College. However, given the lack of complete information at this time, the assembly members agreed that it was not appropriate for the W&M Faculty Assembly to put forward any type of resolution on this matter. Bill O'Connell agreed to ask the Provost to address the Faculty Assembly to provide more information on this issue.
III. Old Business.
There was a brief discussion of whether anything further was known regarding the 2010 document. While there was no new draft available, assembly members agreed that the Executive Committee should ensure that the document distributed to alumni at Charter Day incorporated the changes suggested by the Faculty Assembly.
IV. New Business
There were two items of new business. The first was a brief statement that the Executive Committee will be working on co-ordinated bylaw changes that will be presented at one of the spring meetings. The second item was a discussion of the role of alternates in faculty assembly meetings an issue raised by Alan Ward. It was agreed that alternates would be identified and included in the regular communications (of agendas, minutes, etc.) of the Faculty Assembly.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret Saha
Secretary
