Northeastern State University

Minutes of the Faculty Council

Friday, January 14, 2011

Call to Order

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Dan Savage at 3:05 p.m. in

Tahlequah (SCI 129).

Council members in attendance: Jennifer Edwards (COLA); Kristopher Copeland (COLA);

John Diamantopoulos (SHP); Ron Cambiono (EDU); Brandon Oberg (Library);

Carolyn Cox (COLA); Dan Savage (COLA); Isaac DiIanni (BT); Susan Woitte (Library);

Council members in attendance in Broken Arrow: John Newhouse (B & T); Julia Kwok (B & T);

Buster Hall (COLA); Anita Ede (EDU); Tia Bennett (EDU); Paul Cooper (EDU)

Council members in attendance in Muskogee: Joyce Van Nostrand (SHP); Ryan Fenska

(Optometry)

Council Officers in attendance: Dan Savage (Vice President)

Guests: Tahlequah: Ernst Bekkering (BT); Rick Matzen (BT)

Guests: Broken Arrow: Tom Rink (Library)

December minutes were reviewed. One word was misspelled and must be corrected. Cambiano made a motion to approve the minutes. Cox seconded. The minutes were approved.

Budget

No budget items.

Speaker

Dilene Crockett spoke about the university restructuring process. Many changes are taking place and there is a move toward making the University Planning Group a monitoring/implementing group. New people are being sought to serve on this important committee. Groups were heavily administrative in the past and faculty are needed. The Cabinet agreed. Individuals are encouraged to provide feedback regarding how to make these things more faculty friendly. The membership will be divided into different levels of workloads based on people’s ability to participate. The committee leadership is primarily seeking tenured faculty to serve. Positions/people being sought include: faculty chair, member of the faculty council, four people from the general membership of UPC, staff, students from each campus. The HLC structure will be folded into the planning structure and include the following people: 3-5 administrators, 5-8 at-large members. An email will be sent asking for volunteers or nominations. The proposed schedule was discussed. The goal is to begin in January. Students will be teamed with a person on the committee. During January, February, and March, the group will work on monitoring priorities from the year before. In March, an open forum will take place.

-feedback regarding this information

Savage suggested that meetings could be scheduled on Fridays other than the first Friday of the month. Another individual voiced concern regarding scheduling meetings on Fridays as that may not be a good time for certain people. There is the possibility of having meetings at home using Wimba, etc. Another important question is whether people can be identified to serve. One individual inquired about how long we have to recruit individuals. If it takes more time, that should be the recommendation. This should be done right. There was some confusion regarding the role of the executive committee versus UPC. The executive committee is a little more involved.

Dilene will re-send the documents.

Committees

-Shared Governance

-CIRCUS – Nothing

-Bylaws – half way done with revisions. The committee will send the final revisions to Deason-Toyne.

-Faculty Welfare – Nothing

-Faculty Awards – Nothing

-Curriculum Program – Nothing

Old Business

We are ready to move forward in regard to the tenure and promotion document. There was a question regarding program chairs and their duties. Program chair activities are important and we should recognize the role of program chairs. Diamantopoulos suggested that we should first recognize the program chair position. Savage questioned whether there is a need for official recognition (there is a statement in Appendix C). How long would this take? DiIanni stated that there is nothing barring us from making such a recognition. Cambiano moved to recognize program chairs and program chairs in Appendix C. DiIanni seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Hall would like clarification. Another suggested that we re-phrase academic positions held to administrative duties performed to create more recognition. This can be taken to the cabinet. Savage stated that this is not meant to be an exhaustive list. We don’t need to change the document. Fenska requested that on p. 10 line 29, the phrase “exceeds criteria” be changed to “meets or exceeds criteria.” Another issue was brought to the council’s attention by Fenska in regard to the number of people on the mentoring committee. In some departments, there are not many tenured faculty members. A request was made to allow the mentoring committee to contain one mentor and department chair, but no outside member. Bekkering was concerned about making too many changes and that we should stay with three. DiIanni moved to forward the tenure and promotion document with one editing change. Edwards seconded. The motion passed.

-Feedback on shared governance document

DiIanni had some questions. For instance, does every department have to develop a shared governance committee? Another stated that the college level is sufficient. We will wait to Deason-toyne to return. There were also concerns regarding some of the wording. There are possible contradictions that need to be addressed such as “speaking freely” and “honoring policies.” Cambiano asked how the document will be operationalized. Further, should faculty have the power to recall or have a vote of no confidence in regard to administrators? Should it be a part of this document? Bekkering stated that from a practical standpoint, it’s not necessary. Cambiano suggested that we should look at the administrative evaluations and perhaps have some faculty input. Evaluations are a continuing process. This is good. Savage stated that we will discuss this more when we meet again.

-Concealed weapons resolution

Savage stated that we need to strike the word “unanimous.” DiIanni is not a member of the NRA, but he voted against the resolution. The main issue is that he feels this is a bit hasty for certain reasons: 1) this is not an issue of intentional misuse as the resolution will not stop this and 2) there is a question whether there is evidence to show that campuses will be safer. DiIanni would like more evidence before supporting a resolution. Crockett asked if this will be enforced. Savage stated that the resolution is just meant to express an opinion. Bekkering stated that most campuses already have a policy against weapons on campus. We can support a resolution if it’s sent as a statement of intent. It can be left to individual campuses. DiIanni would support this. Bekkering stated that if the bill passes, it won’t matter. It may be more effective to have individuals contact the legislators if they oppose the House Bill. Savage asked for a motion. Cambiano asked if we should send this out to faculty. Finska moved to table it and send it out to the faculty. Cox seconded. The document will be sent in an email. DiIanni stated that we shouldn’t send the resolution unless it’s worded appropriately. It’s not endorsed yet. Another stated that we just want faculty feedback. The motion was approved. Ede stated that the vote may not make a big difference anyway. She asked about the possibility of installing an emergency system in classrooms. Savage stated that this could be discussed.

-International faculty

Savage stated that most large research universities provide financial help to foreign faculty, but not all even pay for the Visa. Most schools have a university studies center or resource center to offer advice. Should we seek advice from OSU and OU to help our foreign faculty? Bekkering stated that it is the responsibility of the foreign faculty member. Kwok stated that there are different requirements depending on where faculty come from. The employer should provide some support (i.e., letter of support). Savage indicated that human resources lacks experience to deal with foreign scholars. Kwok agreed. Bekkering questioned whether there is anything Faculty Council can do at all. Savage asked whether the president of Faculty Council should bring forth concerns. Bekkering stated that we should have specific examples. Kwok stated that if we are interested in a faculty member, we should help. Bekkering stated that we should do what is required by law, but no more.

New Business

The decision was made to postpone new business.

The nominating committee needs volunteers. The Circle of Excellence committee needs volunteers. Please make a note and ask colleagues.

-MLK day of service – Let Diamantopoulos know if you are interested in serving as a representative of Faculty Council.

DiIanni moved to adjourn the meeting. Edwards seconded. The motion was approved and the meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m.

Minutes submitted by Jennifer Edwards and Carolyn Cox, acting temporary secretaries.