ABSTRACT of Faculty Senate Meeting October 24, 2005
Bill Lyne, Senate President, called the 2005-06 Senate to order at 4:07 pm on October 24, 2005. Senators approved minutes of October 10, 2005 and Standing Committee minutes.
· Lyne reported that Executive Council had endorsed a request from Sue Guenter-Schlesinger for a training program for faculty on issues and Title IX liability regarding sexual harassment.
· Lyne reported that Kyle Crowder will chair an Ad Hoc Committee to review handbook language on faculty review . Faculty are invited to participate.
· Lyne reported that Vice President George Pierce has agreed: 1) that members of the parking committees will be appointed by the Senate and will submit regular minutes and reports for Senate review, and that initial recommendations will pass thru the Senate on their way to Presidents’ Council; 2) to look into ramifications of an After Hours Pass for faculty; 3) to look into running the shuttle to the Lincoln Creek between 6 pm and midnight; 5) to successfully synchronize shuttle movement with the 10-minute leeway between classes; 6) to check options to allow faculty to travel using their own credit cards and reservation options other than state approved travel agencies.
· President Morse will meet with the Seattle Business Forum which last year raised $75,000 in scholarships. Morse hopes that a Bellingham Business Forum will do the same. Morse will begin meetings with legislators and the governor on the budget for the coming session.
· Provost Bodman reported that his rationale for faculty position allocations was a result of submissions from the Deans outlining their priorities. Bodman must balance the pressure of lack of personnel in colleges with the pressure to create tenure track positions. Bodman will present a concept paper on Integrated Programs to the Senate.
· Faculty with questions on Freshman Interest Groups and the First Year Experience were directed to forward them to Thomas Downing, Chair of Academic Coordinating Commission.
· Senators learned Academic Technology Committee will request that it review podium design of work stations. The Senate recommends that University Planning Council’s meeting with AIC architects include faculty from affected departments.
· Senators heard Sara Singleton, Legislative Liaison, report on first meetings with legislators and Council of Faculty representatives. Singleton requests faculty to attend a “meet with legislators” day and to provide useful and succinct stories for legislators of what faculty accomplish.
· Executive Council Motions: Senators unanimously passed a motion to revise page 15, X.E. of the Faculty Handbook to eliminate confusion regarding General Merit. The Executive Council withdrew a second motion pending further language clarification.
· Senators adjourned at 5:49 pm.
Appointments and Elections – Jeff Newcomer, Officer
To Academic Coordinating Commission: David Wallin, Huxley College
REVISIONS TO THE FACULTY HANDBOOK:
On October 24, 2005 the Faculty Senate unanimously passed a motion from the Executive Council to revise pages 15 and 16 of the Faculty Handbook, X. E., as follows (new material underlined; deletions struck-through):
E. Criteria and Administration of Funds
1. Criteria for General Merit Step Increase
(a) Tenured Faculty
(1) (no change)
(2) A faculty member
having been tenured or promoted from assistant to associate or associate to full
professor will be deemed as having satisfied the requirements for general merit
step increase for increases occurring in the five years during the
review period subsequent to the promotion. Review of the faculty member
in the fifth year in the final year of the review period will be
necessary to qualify for any general merit increase in the subsequent year.
(b) (c) (no change)
(d) Review Procedures:
Peer evaluations,
departmental summaries, and chair's evaluation, along with the candidate's file,
are forwarded to a college-wide committee for review, evaluation, and
recommendation to the Dean. In units without departments (Fairhaven and Huxley
College and the Library), peer evaluations and the candidate's file are sent
directly to the unit committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation to the
Dean or University Librarian. This process shall evaluate the performance of
the faculty member in three areas for the three previous years review
period: teaching effectiveness, scholarly/creative/artistic endeavor, and
service to the institution and profession. Standards for evaluation in these
areas are determined by the descriptions of various academic ranks as
established in the Faculty Handbook, Section I.III.E., "Qualifications
and Characteristics of Faculty Ranks." The faculty member's performance shall
be classified as unsatisfactory, satisfactory, or superior for each area. These
review results shall form the basis for receiving salary increases. A faculty
member shall be eligible for a General Merit increase in each of the next
three years year until the next review if that faculty member
receives satisfactory evaluations or better in at least two areas, one of which
must be at least a satisfactory evaluation in teaching effectiveness. The
review period shall include all evidence accumulated since the last successful
review for general merit.