Faculty Senate Minutes
October 19th, 2007

Senators in attendance: Jennifer Anderson, Mary Bantell, Kirk Cammarata, Tim Causgrove, Nikki Changchit, Mark Hartlaub, Randall Johnson, Scott King, Terry Lewis, Margaret Lucero, Ian MacDonald, Mary Kay Mortimer, Marvarene Oliver, Sharon Talley, and Waheed
Ex Officio: Kathy Winston and Anantha Babbili

Meeting was called to order by Speaker Hartlaub at 2:07 p.m.

Minutes from the last meeting were approved.

Speaker Comments:
Hartlaub met with Provost Babbilli to discuss the most pressing issues. The issues regarding the International Faculty that have been raised were discussed. A meeting was called by D. Billeaux to discuss the International Faculty Issue. Of particular importance is the posting of jobs that are currently held by International Faculty members, required for them to keep their job. HR did not follow the correct procedures in some cases. This has caused problems for some International Faculty members.
• Social Security Number attestation form update
Provost Babbili met with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate to discuss the SS# attestation form. At that meeting the Provost asked the Executive Committee to revise the form to make it more acceptable to the faculty. The revised form was sent to the provost. This will be discussed further after Provost Babbili arrives at the meeting
• Merit Pay Survey – Deans
This issues also was postponed until later in the meeting


Committee Reports:
• Academic Affairs (Sharon Talley reporting) – The Academic Affairs committee met with Dave Billeaux about academic dishonesty issues. Traditionally these issues have been handled with grade appeals. The current thinking is that the dishonesty issues should be separated from the grade appeals process. The Student Affairs office has actually started hearing student appeals involving dishonesty. The Student Affairs people feel they are more experienced and can better handle dishonesty cases. The burden of proof in dishonesty cases is on the faculty member that accuses the student. This may require a new committee to handle these types of issues. If Student Affairs is going to handle these reports we need to develop specific procedures for how they will be handled. A tutorial on-line would be helpful, which would require students to pass training on academic honesty before entering classes. There are also some other policies and procedures that don’t align with the current practices. A separate committee to hear appeals on dishonesty should include faculty members, similar to grade appeals. The timelines for grade appeals also needs to be better enforced. The Academic Affairs Committee will draft something on a new policy to handle the dishonesty appeals. Talley asked for recommendations for the new policy. Bantell suggested using the on-line tutorial and also including information on deadlines in the tutorial. The College of Business on-line tutorial was discussed and compared to the requirements for other colleges. Talley asked if this should be at the College level or University level? Having something at the University level could be helpful to all students even if they have not yet declared a major. Since students often say they didn’t know they were doing something wrong – an on-line test could be helpful. Cammarata asked how we could decide what “strong faculty participation” in the new committee means. The student may be uncomfortable if the committee is all faculty members this is a reason to have Student Affairs involved. It is important for neutral people to be on the committee and some students may think that Student Affairs is neutral. There was a general discussion about how much faculty representation is needed and where the appeals should be centered. Although, Student Affairs wants to play a major role, some senators expressed the opinion that it should be more directly under the Provost’s Office. This discussion was based on the minutes of the Academic Affairs Committee on Sept. 24, 2007.

Hartlaub made a motion to accept the notes from the Academic Affairs Committee as the basis of a new policy. With an amendment was added to have an on-line tutorial at the University level with supplements by each College.
The vote was as follows:
Yes 12
Against 1
Abs 2

The Senators introduced themselves as a way of welcoming the new Provost Anantha Babbili.

Return to Speaker comments:
• The Merit Pay Survey was a major accomplishment last year and it helped make the process more transparent. The next issue is - do we want consistency across the University? Dean Gilioti decided to make it consistent across the Liberal Arts College. Hartlaub has talked to four of the Deans, leaving one more for the merit pay discussion.

• ABE Committee (Mark Hartlaub reporting as there is no current chair) – the ABE Committee discussed eligibility for serving in the Faculty Senate. This is an issue because of the large number of individuals in Clinical positions in some Colleges. Right now the rules do not allow for individuals in Clincal positions to serve in the Faculty Senate. Bantell described the concern that there may be too much of a burden on the tenured and tenure-track faculty to serve in all of the important University service roles. At an individual level faculty are concerned about this issue. There may not be a simple way to solve this problem. There are also other Colleges that do not have individual designated in the Clinical status, but might have people in similar positions with other titles. This issue came from Dean Hamilton and may not represent the sentiments of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. Bantell and Mortimer asked to take it back to their College before any action is recommended on this.

• SS# form – A small group from the Executive Committee (Senators Cammarata, Lucero, & Hartlaub) met to discuss possible changes to the form. The changed form represents a compromise with the administration. The changes specifically handled the primary issues that faculty had voiced regarding the old form. Changes were made on part 2 from “I certify to “I acknowledge that”. Other changes were made on numbers 1, 2, 5, & 6 all under part 2. Provost Babbili thanked the Executive Committee for meeting with him earlier in the week. He was asked to make it a priority item for the campus. A third exposure of Social Security information could result in a loss of federal funding. Faculty members were a primary focus of the form because it was faculty members that were involved in the two previous incidents. Babbili asked the Executive Committee to revise the form so that faculty would be willing to sign it. Hartlaub gave Babbili the revised form earlier in the week. Babbili presented the revised form to the other administrators including the President and also to individuals at the system level. The revisions were accepted and he wants us to go forward with the signing of the form. Hartlaub indicated his appreciation and then indicated we would like to continue to discuss the related procedures for handling data. The President needed to show the DOE that the faculty and the University would provide a good faith effort aimed at handling this problem. If we have signed the form the University will support us if there is an accidental exposure.

Hartlaub moved that we approve the revised document in the Faculty Senate. Cammarata added that we wish to continue to have a dialog about the procedures. Waheed seconded the proposal. MacDonald suggested that the faculty need more information about the benefits of signing the form. Babbili suggested that he and Hartlaub could make a joint statement. This was discussed in terms of how the information should be given to the faculty. After discussion it was suggested that the information should come directly from the Provost with information regarding the Faculty Senate role included. The vote was as follows:
For 15
Against 0
Abstain 0

Return to Committee Reports:
• Committee on Committees – (report by Randall Johnson) Johnson provided a report describing the positions that have been replaced. A handout was provided to show where the committee changes were made. He also discussed some of the issues involved and the remaining openings. One of the most important issues was the recommendation for representation on the Core Curriculum Committee. The COC recommends that two representatives from each College be on the Core Curriculum. These members would be the only individuals to have voting privileges. Johnson made a motion to accept the recommendations of the COC regarding the Core Curriculum Committee. This was second by Cammarata and then passed by voice assent.
The next major issue was the representation on the Institutional Review Board. It was recommended that two members be selected from each College by the VP for Research in consultation with the Deans. This is only a recommendation on the selection, but not in the overall representation. K. Winston suggested that this may be inconsistent with the current University regulations. If this passes we need to clear up any inconsistencies found. Johnson moved that the procedure regarding representation on the IRB be accepted. This was passed by voice assent
A further recommendation involved the Chair eligibility for IRB. Johnson recommended that the Chair be a tenured Associate or Full Professor. This was seconded by Bantell and passed by voice assent.
A recommendation regarding the Chair description for the Research Enhancement Committee was withdrawn. Another recommendation regarding faculty membership on the Calendar Committee was also withdrawn.
• Faculty Affairs – (report by Marvarene Oliver) – The Tenure Policy we currently have is consistent with the other policies, but the Faculty Senate has discussed some issues about the way the policy is written. If we make any changes then the other policies will have to be changed to match. Two issues that have been raised are the lack of specific timelines and the inability to add things after the packet is in process. This policy and related policies have been in process since 2005.

King moved to extend the meeting, this was accepted.

It was decided that the Tenure Policy would go back to the committee for further work.

• Budget Committee – (report by Waheed) Waheed indicated that the Budget Committee has not met. Therefore, there is nothing to report at this time.

Other issues:
• The Executive Committee met and assigned an issue to each of the standing committees. Hartlaub moved to have the FS accept these committee assignments and Oliver seconded, this was passed by voice assent.

• Provost Report – (report by Provost Babbili) Babbili said that the Faculty Senate is one of the most influential groups on campus. He indicated that he appreciates the opportunity to attend the Faculty Senate meetings. This is rare and indicates the cooperation between the faculty and Provost. Babbili also indicated that he is our voice on the President’s Council, but this comes from an empowered faculty. The President appreciated the revisions on the SS attestation form. He is looking forward to coming to the Faculty Senate meetings when he is in town.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.

Minutes respectfully submitted by Margaret Lucero