NORTHEASTERN STATE UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Faculty Council Meeting
FRIDAY, October 1, 2010
Call to Order
The meeting was
called to order by President Denise Deason-Toyne at
3:07 p.m. in Broken Arrow (B225). There
was ITV access at Muskogee (SYNR209), Broken Arrow (B225) and Tahlequah (SCI
129).
Council Members in
attendance: Ernst Bekkering (B & T); Ron Cambiano (COE); Christopher Burba
(SHP); Kristopher Copeland (COLA); Kathlyn Shahan (alternate for Carolyn Cox)(COLA); Jennifer Edwards
(COLA); Amy Proctor (COLA); Susan Woitte (Library); Brandon Oberg (Library);
Isaac DiIanni (B & T); Randy Snider (alternate
for John Diamantopoulos, Science & Health Professions);
Dan Sisk (Science & Health Professions)
Council Members
in attendance in Broken Arrow: Anita Ede (Education); Buster Hall (COLA);
Pamela Louderback (Library), Julia Kwok (B
& T); Paul Cooper (COLA); John Newhouse
(B & T)
Council Members in attendance in Muskogee: Ryan
Fenska (Optometry)
Council
Officers in attendance: Denise Deason-Toyne
(President), Dan Savage (Vice President), Pamela Louderback
(Secretary/Treasurer).
Guests:
Tahlequah:
Guests: Broken Arrow: Tom Rink
(Library); Linda Summers (Library); John Yeutter (B
& T)
Invited
Presentations (none provided)
[Council
will set aside time at the first of each meeting to visit with Administrative
Officers should they be able to attend.]
A. Committees and Standing
Reports
1. Review/Approval of Minutes of the 09/10/10 meeting
Minutes of the September meeting was reviewed. President Deason-Toyne
requested corrections be made to reflect call
of order time being based on
technology issues. Ede moved to approve the minutes, it was seconded by
Wallace. The motion passed.
2. Financial Report/Budget for 2010-.
- Delegate to AAUP Conference on Shared
Governance will cost approximately $1,000.
- Probable request for funds for Undergraduate Research Day will cost approximately $1600 (based on last year’s request)
President Deason-Toyne noted that the American Association of University Professor’s (AAUP) conference topic this year is “shared governance”. Considering Provost Tadlock’s charge for Faculty Council (FC) to play a critical role in the University’s process of defining the term (determining what shared governance means) and what it looks like, FC should consider sending delegates to the AAUP conference. Academic Affairs will pay for one (1) person to attend. Kwok noted we should send at least one delegate. It was discussed that Undergraduate Research Day usually requests we fund them, however, that would leave approximately $3200 to fund an additional delegate.
Questions were raised concerning whether any of the University AAUP members were attending and what the expectations would be for attendees. President Deason-Toyne noted Academic Affairs would anticipate attendees to share best practices information with the rest of the university based on the shared governance topic. It was further noted that Dr. Jennifer Edwards may wish to attend; some interest has been shown by several faculty, however, many have had conflicts with previous engagements (other conferences and classes).
A motion to encumber the cost of a plane ticket ($400) out of travel budget, with the remaining ($600) monies being taken out of the general budget was made (DiIanne) and seconded (Ede). President Deason-Toyne inquired whether monies could be moved around; Yeutter confirmed that FC has to move money from the general budget to the travel budget and that FC should not have any problems doing so. The motion carried. President Deason-Toyne will verify the availability of those interested and contact Provost Tadlock regarding one (1) delegate being financed from AA and one (1) delegate being financed through FC budget monies.
COMMITTEE
ASSIGNMENT OPPORTUNITIES:
President Deason-Toyne noted committee assignment opportunities; delegates who sent an email to Secretary Louderback and/or President Deason-Toyne listing their preferences was confirmed. The following committee assignment opportunities include:
– FACULTY WELFARE (New Faculty Orientation)
– FACULTY AWARDS/CIRCLE OF EXCELLENCE (Review of criteria)
– BYLAWS REVIEW COMMITTEE *
– CIRCUS* – Committee Investigating Redundant Committees Undermining Success (a committee on committees)
– CURRICULUM/PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE *
– SHARED GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE *
The following individuals noting an interest in committee contribution (updated from September’s meeting) include: Drs. Proctor and Wallace, and Mr. Oberg (Faculty Welfare); Ms. Woitte and Dr. Ede (Faculty Awards/Circle of Excellence); Drs. Kwok and Newhouse (Bylaws Review); Drs. DiIanni (Chair), Fenska and Ron Cambiano (CIRCUS); Dr. Louderback and Ms. Summers (Curriculum/Program Review); Drs. Savage, Copeland, Deason-Toyne and J. Edwards (Shared Governance).
A. COMMITTEES/STANDING
REPORTS
-
Academic
Integrity Policy/Process has been forwarded to Administration (Provost Tadlock).
B. Old Business
1. TENURE /PROMOTION POLICY PROCEDURE – Discussion
on faculty comments.
Vote to be taken on
sending to Provost to move forward to cabinet.
Expansion Tenure Policy and Procedure committee report – President
Deason-Toyne again stressed a sense of urgency to
this process going forward. Dan noted the
major area of concern is on the last three bullets where it stipulates teaching
load decrease. Three options discussed
were:
1. It could be
totally eliminate
2. Or, we could
stipulate a transference to be temporary for a semester or a year
3. Or, for
those departments with averages of nine (9) course loads – a change in the
verbiage might be in order
Further discussion/suggestions posed
included:
-
To take
course loads from one member and give to a specific faculty member who performs
less research and/or committee work (RUSO total hours of eighteen [18] for
teaching, research & service).
-
If we leave
language in the proposal as is, a non-tenured faculty member taking on hours
for a tenured faculty is not feasible (from a budgetary perspective) for
overload pay
-
Bekkering suggested
we leave out the last three sentences; Ede agreed noting concerns over three
(30 hours teaching time given to someone to make it an overload situation.
The overall
intent of the report is that this option is merely something that could be made
available. It is not necessarily
required; options must be mutually acceptable and not a permanent
situation. Burba
suggested partnering with Administration to procure outside resources to pay
for adjunct faculty or to provide a fund for awarding. Recipients would possibly be required to
submit a proposal for consideration.
Most concerns ran along the lines of non-mutually acceptable situations
to the detriment of those not primarily considered a researcher.
Kwok noted the
support Provost Tadlock has given regarding an
emphasis on research and choosing weighting for the tenure process based on a
faculty member’s expertise; this report gives faculty guidelines from which to
work. Ede further noted faculty may
still indicate which areas of special emphasis they want to weigh, however,
felt this is a divisive issue that will create more divisiveness. It was noted that it may be prudent to just
eliminate the last three (3) sentences.
Delegates observed we might consider leaving colleges to experiment with
the process. Maybe in a few years, if
colleges find a workable model, it could be adopted. A motion to eliminate the three ending bullet
points was moved (Ede) and seconded (Proctor). The motion was passed with one
member abstaining (Cambiano).
Other points of interest discussed:
o
What tenured member should provide during review – note under
Appendix C, Section 1 – should more documentation be required? If some items
under teaching are more extensive, verbiage found in the section under teaching
could be cleaned up. The list found in
the Appendix is merely suggestive. The
tenured member could consider covering highlights in the narrative. If further representative examples of
documentation are required, ask for it.
o
Bekkering noted that
all that should be required is a CV and a reflective narrative; provide
evidence of effective teaching and give a page limit – the faculty member can
structure it however they want. It
should be ultimately left up to candidate to specify that they are a teacher
and to explain their teaching philosophy and methods. The list should be considered merely as
suggestions/recommendations; it is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Documentation of successful student learning
in addition to effective teaching could be done reflectively within the culture
of the college. The expectation would be
that the faculty member continue to demonstrate that
they are affecting student learning.
Hopefully, this detail will come through with the mentoring
committee. Dan offered a rewrite of
Appendix C and recirculation of the document for feedback.
o
A change in the terminology describing a “tenured faculty” was
requested; they shall be referred to as “member” instead of “candidate”.
Ede stressed a consistency in the mentoring
committees; should there be specific guidelines? Dan suggested guidelines that
state weighting of categories would be common across colleges but would allow
for much discretion between/among colleges.
President Deason-Toyne noted that much of the
success of the process comes down to selecting the mentoring committee. The selection should be done in concert with
the Department chair to provide consistency to the overall process. Mentors should know the process and advise candidates/members accordingly. Autonomy occurs at this juncture in the
process; it is then up to the Chairs to determine what the candidate needs to
do to be successful.
This process allows for a third year “hard
review” to let the candidate know whether they are on track so there is no
“blindsiding” on the sixth year. If the
Dean and department Chair are not in agreement, there is a breakdown in the
communication process. Provost Tadlock asked all Deans to articulate what their perception
of the overall understanding of the Boyer model is. The requirements are based on disciplines,
thus, there may be differences for various colleges. Specific goals, objectives and an honest
review for improvement are critical for this process to work well.
A motion to revise the document was made (Cambiano),
as amended by Deason-Toyne, and seconded (DiIanni) to take the amended document and obtain member votes via email after
giving faculty one (1) week to respond (by October 11. The motion carried.
2. Faculty/Staff Development Days – add day(s)
to calendar to provide time? See proposed 2011-2012 calendar
Clarification was received by Dr. Janet Bahr. President Deason-Toyne asked if there were any further questions to take back to Provost Tadlock and Dr. Bahr regarding Faculty/Staff Development Days? Several suggestions were put forward for workshops/seminars on the following topics: stress relief, or how to effectively identify risk potentials for gunmen
3.
Location for
Faculty Gathering – All campuses
Further discussion regarding this topic took place during the meeting. Kwok noted a faculty lounge on each campus is a good idea. At the previous university she was employed at there was a faculty lounge where monthly TGIF gatherings took place. This provided opportunities for networking, teambuilding, and social events – President Deason-Toyne suggested a “Gather Here, Get Acquainted” concept. President Deason-Toyne will make the appropriate contacts with Deans Jenlink (BA) and McElroy (MUS); she will entertain further suggestions/comments. Drs. Proctor and Wallace may consider this a topic to take up on the Faculty Welfare Committee.
C. New Business
GOALS for
2010-2011
-
Faculty only forums will take place sometime this month; further
details will be forthcoming
-
Snyder noted that last spring’s textbook price topic might be
something the FC take another look at. President Deason-Toyne
believes that faculty have a responsibility to help
bring down pricing but she’s not sure how well that’s being monitored. Ede further noted that it continues to be a
big concern in COE – she took some chapters from two books and remade it into
one book – saving $100 for each student. Pearson & McGraw Hill allows
choosing integration of multiple book chapters, case studies – to build/compile
your own book – this helps defray costs.
President Deason-Toyne suggested the Curriculum committee could send out emails periodically to provide resources for faculty to consider. This might provide a way to expedite the process -- to get more faculty thinking of ways to alleviate textbook prices. Kwok suggested faculty liaise with the CTL staff during the Broken Arrow Learning Community Friday afternoons to come up with further ideas.
D. –
ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
E. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:18 P.M.
NEXT
MEETING: November 5, 2010
ITEMS
BEING MONITORED-
Location
of Circle of Excellence Bricks
Worker’s
Comp. advocate/liaison
Submitted by Pamela Louderback, Secretary-Treasurer
10/11/10
--------------------------------------------------------------