Minutes for Faculty Senate meeting
October 12, 2007
Board Room in Student Union

1. Call to Order. President Whiting called the meeting to order at 3:02.
2. Introduction of guest: Jeff Brown, CNU chief police officer and Doug Shipley, Director of Auxiliary Support,
3. Approval of minutes of Faculty Senate meetings
1. acknowledge electronic approval of minutes for September 7, 2007 meeting
4. Presentations by guests: Jeff Brown presented CNU's comprehensive safety and security plan. The plan includes three different levels of emergencies and a notification plan for each level. The notifications include eight different methods of notification.

   In the discussion, President Whiting jumped to number B in the president's report: Security & Training protocols for faculty/classrooms. Senators Brunke and Carlson volunteered to serve on a committee to discuss how faculty will be trained to respond appropriately to emergencies.

5. President's report
1. State budget reversion plan. Remains at $1,369,720. Encourage state representatives to allow use of “rainy day” fund. CNU withheld ca. $800K from budget allocations anticipating this reversion plan.  A good portion of the remaining amount will be realized by not filling non-faculty positions that are now open. 
2. Security & Training protocols for faculty/classrooms: discussed above under presentation of special guest, Chief Jeff Brown
3. The Provost's Office is setting up an Academic Advising Assessment Task Force with the purpose of building advising assessment into the overall university assessment plan. Its charge: “To date, no systematic or ongoing assessment of Academic Advising has been conducted on the CNU campus. However, data gleaned through such systematic assessment would be useful in providing formative feedback to the Academic Advising Office, faculty advisors, and to monitor students’ satisfaction with the advising process. This committee should develop a systematic means for assessing advising on a regular basis to be incorporated into CNU’s ongoing assessment plan.

   At this point, Keston Fulcher, Wade Oliver, and Roger Hoover are members. Kelly Cartwright will be ex-officio. The Provost's office would like to have a faculty representative and asked the Senate for an individual to sit on this task force. On behalf of the Senate, Peter Knipp has volunteered to serve on this committee.

4. There is interest in the development of a January intersession term that offers academic experiences for credit (such as study abroad opportunities). The Provost's Office will be putting together J-Term logistics/implementation task group to address the issues. They would like the Senate to recommend a faculty representative to participate in this effort. President Whiting asked the Senate for a couple of members to serve. Senator Redick has volunteered.
5. Chair’s compensation request. Information on the response of the Provost's Office concerning the request can be found in Feb. 16, 2007 Senate minutes. The Provost's Office did not approve of the idea of across-the-board compensation (large and small departments equal compensation). The Chairs were approached with this issue in the spring – and have not provided any alternative proposal.  Senator Filetti will ask the chairs if they would like any further action.
6. There will be a search for a person to run the Office of Sponsored Programs. President Whiting has volunteered to sit on the search committee. President Whiting also suggested some names of faculty to sit on this committee.
7. Meeting with Bill Coger (VP Mariner Museum) concerning Mariner Library within the CNU’s library. There will be a special area of the library with controlled access for the collection. Mariner’s staff will maintain and protect this collection. Discussed some ideas of how to “advertise” the content of the collection (i.e. special seminars). The online portion of the collection will be accessed through the CNU’s web pages.

   Discussion followed about the status of library space. Senators were interested in the current state of space in the library. It was suggested that Mary Sellen be invited to a senate meeting to give the senate an update.

6. Committee reports
1. Senator Duskin gave a report on the Committee on University Honor. He reported that the committee was established to infuse honor into, and to make honor a more meaningful part of, the CNU experience. The committee consists of 3 faculty, 3 students, and Michelle Moody (Director of Equal Opportunity and Faculty Recruitment) and Kevin Hughes (Director of Center for Honor Enrichment and Community Standards). The committee is considering many possible recommendations regarding the honor code, and will submit a report this semester with several recommendations for future action.

   Discussion included a recommendation that the honor code be framed in terms of students' rights and responsibilities (e.g., "you have the right to be in a non-discriminatory environment which entails the following responsibilities: ...").

2. Board of Visitors September 13, 2007
1. Student Life: Senator Guajardo reported that most of the meeting discussed the security plan presented by Chief Brown above, and a discussion by Andrew Lunson president of SGA and the student body, about restructuring the student government association.
2. Academic Affairs: Senator Wheeler reported that the Provost shared his vision of CNU's academic areas of emphasis which he had discussed at the September senate meeting
3. Finance Committee: Senator Lambert reported that the end of year fiscal report was given.
4. Development: Senator Hasbrouck had no report.
5. Entire Board: President Whiting reported that the board has a new member, Ann Hunnicutt. A report was given on this year's freshman class: The class of 1250 was the largest ever with a GPA 3.5 and an average SAT of 1200. The freshman-sophomore retention was 82%. The alumni organized a 5k race on September 15, 2007. The alumni office is also organizing regional reunions, a postal address, and an email list.
3. Senator Wheeler reported on recent FRC action: In the past, the FRC looked at all portfolios. With 94 personnel actions, in Fall 2007, this practice is neither plausible, nor effective. Accordingly, the FRC met with the Provost and Vice Provost to gain clarity on the FRC's responsibilities which are:
   • ensuring handbook processes have been followed
   • providing an evaluation independent of those levels of review

     The following charge for the FRC emerged from that meeting. This year, the FRC shall focus its scrutiny on Class A (tenure and promotion) decisions and on any Class B decisions (retention, conversion and post tenure performance reviews) in which there has been conflict in preceding levels of evaluation. Such conflict might involve a divergence between the dean and peer group decisions, or might involve a dissenting opinion inside the peer group itself. The FRC shall review remaining Class B decisions by reading the EVAL-6 statement, the peer group statement, and the dean’s recommendation to assure itself that Handbook processes have been followed (Memorandum from the Office of the Provost, October 2, 2007).

     The Senate additionally recommended that the FRC focus scrutiny on any candidacy in which the peer group and dean agree on a negative decision. providing a university-wide perspective on candidates. The FRC will check that all threshold standards in the University Handbook have been met and are in line with university expectations.

   • providing a university-wide perspective on candidates. The FRC will check that all threshold standards in the University Handbook have been met and are in line with university expectations.
4. Faculty Development Grants: President Whiting reported that three more final grant reports came in from Brennan Kraxberger, Sheri Shuck-Hall, and Daniel Clark. He further noted that the final report is a requirement, and that faculty members who do not submit one will be excluded from consideration if they have not sent a final report.
7. Old Business
1. Senate Goals

   Action: Wheeler/Guajardo move to reconsider goals. There is no discussion. Wheeler/Duskin move to accept senate objectives. voting for: unanimous.

   Comment President Whiting reminds senators to ask departments not represented on the senate how they would like to contribute to university service.

   Discussion Later: When discussing the faculty evaluation system under New Business, Number 1 of Strategy 1A of Objective 1 was revised. See the discussion there for the specific rewording.

8. New Business
President Whiting asked to consider Faculty Senate Resolutions supporting SCHEV outstanding Faculty Award nominees out of order.
1. Faculty Evaluation Systems

   Considered after B, SCHEV outstanding Faculty Award nominees.

   Background To begin implementing the faculty senate goals, President Whiting suggested that the senate commit Strategy 1A, "Examine the effectiveness of the faculty evaluation process for both summative (annual, tenure, promotion) and formative (improvement) assessment" as an immediate goal by creating a committee to examine the Pollard report. Scott Pollard presented the findings of a 3 years committee established to recommend a new faculty evaluation system. These findings were presented in the minutes of the April 20, 2007 senate meeting in a report referred to here as the Pollard report.

   Discussion Some senators expressed concern that the current committee not redo the work of the previous two committees on faculty evaluation, and that the process move forward. This discussion brought the senate back to the wording of number 1 of Strategy 1A of objective 1.

   Action: Duskin/Guajardo moved to table discussion of the faculty evaluation system to return to discussion of the goals. in favor: unanimous.

   • Returning to the senate goals:

     Action: Leland/Rahim move to change the wording of number 1 of Strategy 1A of objective 1. from "produce a summary of" to "consider, evaluate, and make a recommendation regarding" so that it will now read: "Consider, evaluate and make a recommendation regarding the Pollard Committee’s report on evaluation at CNU." voting in favor: unanimous. The link to the approved Senate Goals under VII.A above reflects this change.

   Action Duskin/Wheeler move to put discussion of the faculty evaluation system back on the floor. vote: unanimous.

   Discussion: Discussion centered around the members of the committee. Senators did not want previous institutional knowledge to be lost, and did want the deans and provost involved to improve the chance of administration buy in. The following will be asked to be on the committee: Bob Hasbrouck (chair); Mark Padilla, Provost; Douglas Gordon (CLAS Dean); Stephanie Bardwell (acting Business Dean); Tim Marshall; Scott Pollard and Kathleen Brunke and Nate French will each find a junior faculty member. The senate then felt that the committee should be asked to report back relatively quickly to help ensure progress, and to determine appropriate next steps; The first senate meeting Spring semester 2008 (January) seemed like a reasonable deadline for asking the committee to achieve number 1 of strategy 1A.

   Action Duskin/Carlson move to establish a committee on faculty evaluation to implement strategy 1A: "examine the effectiveness of the faculty evaluation process for both summative (annual, tenure, promotion) and formative (improvement) assessment." This committee should report back on task number 1 of that strategy: "consider, evaluate and make a recommendation regarding the Pollard Committee’s report on faculty evaluation at CNU", at the senate meeting in January. vote in favor: unanimous.

2. Faculty Senate Resolutions supporting SCHEV outstanding Faculty Award nominees for Kelly Cartwright, Lisa Spiller and Phil Hamilton. At President Whiting's request, considered out of order.

   Action After minor edits, Marshall/Redick move to approve the recommendations. Vote to approve faculty senate resolution for Cartwright: in favor: unanimous. Vote to approve faculty senate resolution for Spiller: in favor: unanimous. Vote to approve faculty senate resolution for Hamilton: in favor: unanimous.

   The meeting then continued by returning to A, Faculty Evaluation Systems, described above.

3. Faculty Centers for Research, Development and Teaching: research best practices.

   Discussion: Senators wondered what this committee would do, and whether the work of the committee would be fruitless if their recommendations were not going to be implemented.

   Action Because this topic seemed to require more time for discussion than remained in the meeting, Filleti/Wheeler voted to table the discussion. in favor: Wheeler, Redick, Filetti, Lambert, Brunke, Zhang, Carlson, Duskin, Rahim, Jordan, Hasbrouck. opposed: Guajardo, French. abstain: Marshall

4. Curriculum: Span397 proposal for a new course and for a course to be in the AoI Western Traditions. It was approved on both accounts by the UCC. Duskin and Redick agreed to review the proposal, and make recommendations for action in November.
5. Assign committee to address suggested handbook changes:
   1. FRC rewording from pages 110-111 and page 167 about the FRC charge to evaluate eval-4s.
   2. Academic Advising
   3. Include in the University Handbook
   4. senate standing subcommittees: PAC, handbook, sabbatical, faculty development grant, minutes policy
   Filetti and Carlson will make a recommendation to the senate to pass to the Handbook committee.
6. Assign senators to run the following two elections in November: liberal arts and school of business election to replace Michelle Vachris and Graham Schweig on FRC who are on sabbatical. Jordan will do liberal arts. Redick will do business.
7. Examine issue: Limit the number peer groups that one person can serve on as chair and/or as member. President Whiting suggested moving this topic to another time. There were no objections.
9. Other