Faculty Assembly
Faculty Assembly Meeting Minutes
September 28, 2004
Members present: Christopher Abelt, David Armstrong, Deborah Bebout, James
Beers, Chandos Brown, Clay Clemens, Robert Diaz, Alan Fuchs, Nancy Gray, Lu
Ann Homza, Martha Houle, Katherine Kulick, David Leslie, Tom Linneman, Robert
Orwoll, Ann Reed, Ron Rosenberg, Wanda Wallace, Tom White.
Ex-officio member present: Robert Archibald
Members absent: Liz Canuel, Alan Meese.
I. Call to order. President Abelt called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M.
II. Approval of Minutes. The minutes for the meetings of April 27, May 11 and August 19, 2004 were approved unanimously without changes.
III. Report of Administrative Officers: Provost Feiss and Vice President Jones gave an update on the Charter University initiative. Three documents have been created: (1) revised enabling legislation, (2) a template that will provide a framework for the three institutions while allowing for some variation, and (3) a draft Charter. SJR90 will begin meeting in two weeks to consider the initiative.
The Provost and the Vice President have been giving presentations to various groups of faculty, staff, students and alumni in order explain the Charter proposal and to obtain feedback on this initiative. If the charter proposal is approved, this does not necessarily mean that there will be changes to the Faculty Handbook, but there will very likely be changes for policies and procedures concerning classified employees.
Sam Jones assured the members that the initiative would not result in a loss of benefits to faculty or staff. No one will be forced to change benefits packages, but it is hoped that in the long term, more options would become available (especially for classified staff). The critical issue is for W&M to remain nationally competitive and to do so will require greater levels of flexibility and freedom. Planning "strategically", the College will need to be able to make long term plans regarding salaries, start-up costs, renovations and construction, etc. The Charter initiative, if successful, would allow for such flexibility and for long-range planning while not sacrificing accountability. Under the new initiative, the College is committed to meeting 100% of the demonstrated student financial aid need for in-state undergraduates (which would be a "first" in many years). Currently, we meet approximately 80-85% of that need. Sam Jones urged Faculty Assembly members to consult the website for Frequently Asked Questions concerning the Charter Initiative.
In response to the question, "What incentive does the Commonwealth have to approve this plan?", Sam Jones outlined the following advantages to the State: the terms of the proposal would: (a) attempt to help the state handle the bulge of students headed towards higher education in Virginia - with each institution admitting more students (to varying degrees and in varying areas depending upon the institution), (b) a return of 10% of the funding normally provided by the state to these three institutions - these funds could then be re-channeled to other colleges & universities or to other needed areas as deemed appropriate by the legislature, (c) this would improve the "access" issue for in-state undergraduates by providing for 100% of the student demonstrated financial aid need, and (d) this would lead to stronger institutions of higher education in Virginia which would benefit all of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
In response to the question, "How will this affect the School of Marine Science?" Provost Feiss noted that the budget structure is different at SMS/VIMS (that raising tuition does not increase funds for the SMS) and that the 10% return to the state would not be applied to VIMS/SMS. Concern was expressed by the Assembly that there might be discrepancies between VIMS and the main campus with regards to salaries, retirement options, etc. Sam Jones assured Assembly members that attention would be focused on planning for equity for VIMS and the main campus.
A final question raised the issue of momentum for the Charter Initiative and whether or not that momentum would be affected by the arrival of new president next year. Sam Jones responded that it is anticipated that the new president would likely be in favor of this initiative - for the flexibility and long-range planning that it would provide for the College.
IV. Post-tenure review. The policy from the Personnel Policy Committee was considered as a motion on floor. Two potential amendments discussed at the retreat (8/19) and distributed to the members prior to the meeting were presented as amendments to the motion.
Amendment #1 {insert at the end of the first paragraph under 3d}
This policy does not prohibit an individual unit from conducting regular reviews of its faculty members in addition to the annual merit reviews. In order to qualify as in-depth post-tenure reviews, these reviews must meet the criteria specified in this policy.
This first amendment was itself amended to say "regularly scheduled reviews" in place of "regular reviews." Furthermore, it was suggested that for internal consistency within the document, that this wording change to "regularly scheduled reviews" be made at each point in the document where "regular reviews" appears.
The amendment to the amendment was approved, then the amendement to the motion was also approved with one vote against and 17 votes in favor of the amendment.
Amendment # 2 {insert at the end of 3f}
If, during the term of the individual improvement plan, the relevant department committee, program director or department chair fails to implement these guidelines for assessment in good faith, the faculty member may file a grievance in accordance with section III.B.11 of the Faculty Handbook.
The second amendment to the original motion was approved with one vote against and 17 votes in favor of the amendment. Finally, original motion for a revised Post-Tenure Review policy now with the two amendments was approved with one vote against and 17 votes in favor of the motion. The Parlementarian reminded the members that a two-thirds majority is necessary for approval of a handbook change. The President confirmed that with only one vote against, the two-thirds requirement was met.
The amended PTR proposal now returns to the PPC for (hopefully) final approval, and if there are no additional changes, it will go to the BOV at the November meeting. Once approved by the BOV, each unit (A&S Dept/Program or Professional School) will need to revise its PTR policy in order to take advantage of the new policy. The PRC will likely provide a template to make these revisions easier for individual units.
V. President Search. The search consultant was not present due to travel complications from hurricane Jeanne. Present from the search committee in addition to Clay Clemens and David Leslie were Don Baxter and Howard Busby. The draft of the challenge statement released earlier the same day as the Assembly meeting was discussed. The Search committee is seeking feedback on the document.
Issues were raised regarding the style of language used, the amount of jargon, the validity of stated facts, and the tone or emphasis of the document. Questions were raised about the strong emphasis on the "entrepreneurial direction" of the document (is this the emphasis that we would like the document to have?) and questions were also raised about the wording of the academic qualifications of the candidates (a suggestion to utilize positive wording, rather than negatives). In addition, Assembly members agreed that a stronger statement was needed about wanting a national academic leader, not merely someone with "intellectual curiosity".
Members of the Assembly noted the lack of any mention in the document of diversity issues and recommended that this be added. In addition, the role of faculty governance at the College did not appear in the document and because it is a strong cultural tradition and fundamental practice of governance here at W&M, it needs to be highlighted so that potential candidates will understand the W&M context for long-range planning and decision-making. The document appears to lack a "voice" and it is recommended that the members of the search committee try to give it an identifiable W&M voice.
The motion was approved unanimously to forward these suggestions to the search committee as well as the short list of points identified at the Faculty Assembly retreat in August (as qualities we would like to see in a President).
Don Baxter urged Faculty Assembly members to give serious thought to nominating possible candidates for the Presidency, and/or to suggesting the names of others who might be in a position to make such nominations.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by Katherine Kulick, Faculty Assembly Secretary, pro temp
