Faculty Assembly
Faculty Assembly Meeting Minutes
November 11, 2003
Members present: Jonathan Aries, Nancy Gray, Ann Reed, Katherine Kulick, Robrt
Archibald, Clay Clemens, Will Hausman, Larry Ventis, Deborah Bebout, Robert
Orwoll, Laurie Sanderson, Roger Ries, Ron Rosenberg, Liz Canuel, Robert Diaz,
James Beers, Wanda Wallace, William Stewart.
Members absent: Lan Cao.
I. President Rosenberg called the meeting to order at 3:37 P.M., and a group picture was taken of the Faculty Assembly.
II. The minutes from the October 14 Faculty Assembly meeting were approved without dissent.
III. Report of Administrative Officers. There were no reports by administrative officers at this meeting. Vice Provost Gary Kreps indicated that the Provost was in New Orleans and wished he could be here for the meeting.
IV. Committee Reports. Robert Diaz, Chair of COPAR asked if there were any issues the committee should be addressing. Katherine Kulick indicated that COPAR would be receiving information on Non-Academic Leave Policy to be addressed. Ann Reed reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee had no initiatives thus far. President Rosenberg then distributed a handout listing legal issues taken up by the Faculty Senate of Virginia.
V. Revisiting Post-Tenure Review Policy. Katherine Kulick reported on issues which raise the need for reconsideration. The stated goals are to simplify the policy and to avoid unnecessary review of faculty who are doing well. The provost and the Procedural Review Committee will attempt to draft a revision of the Post-Tenure Review Policy. We should try to arrive at principles to recommend to them which could provide guidance in accomplishing this task. Three prominent issues that will be considered are: (1) Currently, excessive time is spent reviewing those who are doing well; (2) What should be done about a faculty member who has unsatisfactory performance but refuses to develop a plan for improvement; (3) There is no official role for the Provost and the Dean of the Faculty in the current policy. Some constants that have emerged in discussions thus far include: (1) Post-Tenure Review is not a re-tenuring process. (2) Faculty should remain central in the process. (3) There should be a role for department chairs and the Dean to oversee the process. (4) There should be scheduled reviews but there should also be flexibility in the depth of the reviews. (5) There should be a triggering mechanism for unscheduled reviews. Katherine Kulick provided a draft document for discussion which outlined these and other points, and which should be attached to the official record of the minutes. She then requested input from the Faculty Assembly and discussion followed. In response to a question, Katherine acknowledged that we could do less than our current policy, and it would likely be acceptable to the State Legislature. Other points which were raised in discussion included Bob Archibald's noting he thought it good that the committee eliminated the "Pass-Plus" category. Laurie Sanderson noted that in Section IV, paragraph 4, for the requirement to conduct another in depth review of a faculty member four semesters after their IIP is in place, this interval should not include the semester when the plan is formulated. Liz Canuel suggested that perhaps a clear time line should be described. See the document for provisions describing a role for the Provost. In the discussion it was affirmed that although there is a single Post-Tenure Review Policy, specific implementation (e.g., criteria for satisfactory performance) has been left to the discretion of the departments or units. Laurie Sanderson noted that in Section IV she had reservations about the wording describing establishing an IIP, in that the wording seems to leave approval of an IIP too exclusively to the Dean, who could refuse to accept an IIP despite a faculty member's earnest effort. In discussion, there was concern expressed that protection should be included so that the IIP would be jointly arrived at by the faculty member and the Dean. Bill Stewart noted that refusal to accept honest effort by the faculty member to arrive at an IIP would be potentially subject to appeal later. Will Hausman noted that he thought that the document passed two years ago, and subsequently rejected, was a good document and that it should be reviewed in considering the present draft. The point was also raised that since the IIP's were for improvement there should be some consideration of assigning funds to foster such improvement. At the conclusion of the discussion there was general consent that the Faculty Assembly should forward the present document, with our additional comments, to the Provost, and via the Provost, to the Procedural Review Committee or the Personnel Policy Committee who would return a revised document for our further consideration in the future..
VI. Burma Resolution. Mark Fowler appeared before the Faculty Assembly to present a proposed faculty resolution on Burma (see attached document). Mr. Fowler then gave an overview of his concerns and answered questions from members of the Faculty Assembly about the Burma Resolution which he had presented. Several Faculty Assembly members noted the complexity of the issue, and a number of questions were raised about the implications of the resolution. It was suggested that this required thorough study, and Bob Archibald suggested that the matter be referred to the Faculty Assembly Faculty Affairs Committee. The Assembly agreed by consensus that the resolution should be referred to the Faculty Affairs Committee, and that they be requested to report back to the Assembly no later than January.
VII. Old Business. The issue of the form for course evaluations (paper or on-line) was revisited. Liz Canuel noted that VIMS is currently already using only on-line course evaluation. It then became apparent in discussion that they had small class sizes and were able to do on-line evaluations in class, whereas Arts and Sciences, with larger classes, does not have that option. Dean Watkinson noted that the Arts and Sciences Faculty voted to maintain departmental autonomy in course evaluations. That is, departments can choose the format for their course evaluations. It was then recommended and agreed to that we take this up at the next meeting, and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by Larry Ventis, Secretary.
