MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OF THE FACULTY SENATE

SEPTEMBER 12, 2005

 

Members Present: Jim Bennett, Rei Berroa, Rick Coffinberger, Dave Kuebrich, Jim Sanford, Cliff Sutton, Susan Trencher

 

I.                   Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 1:07 p.m.

 

II. Announcements

Esther Elstun is recuperating well from her surgery earlier this summer.

 

III. Old Business

  1. Faculty Handbook revision: a vote to establish a committee to revise the Faculty Handbook will take place at the next Senate meeting. The issue of release time for members of the prospective committee for the spring term 2006 was discussed. The chair of the proposed committee would be chosen by the Senate among the four faculty members elected to the committee; the Provost will appoint three members of the committee.
  2. Non-voting faculty representative to the Board of Visitors: The BOV is scheduled to vote on on this item at their next meeting (October 5, 2005).
  3. Joint Meeting re CNHS reorganization and renaming sponsored by the Office of the Provost and the Faculty Senate (later scheduled September 29, 2005)
  4. Course Evaluation Form: Four recommendations to be voted on at next Senate meeting; concerns were expressed regarding its use and reliability; to continue discussion at next Executive Committee meeting (October 3, 2005).

 

IV. New Business

  1. Clarification of length of tenure for proposed co-deanship for the College of Science; effect upon College of Liberal Arts and Human Studies; funding questions arise; report of Provost appointed committee due sometime in October.
  2. CAS/SCS split and its effect upon allocation for 2006-2007: at this time, it appears not to be an issue as Senators are broadly spread between the two units.
  3. Discussion of visits of Executive Committee members to various departments consensus that one Executive Committee member and one Senator team together to visit four-five department meetings this fall (on a trial basis) to better acquaint faculty with the work of the Senate. Some departments do not schedule regular meetings.
  4. Discussion of departmental self-assessment process for which an initial form is now being developed. Would faculty (Senate) have input? Will this identify concerns enumerated in need of attention or be a Panglossian exercise? According to Karen Gentemann, there is no funding for external site visits. An incomplete template currently exists in IRR. Information compiled may be used in the next SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) report. Among the concerns noted were lack of funding for graduate students, no money for long distance phone calls by individual faculty; lack of money for professional travel so necessary for junior faculty to build their academic reputations; and salary disparities between departments and schools. The issue of backlog of earlier survey analyses was also raised.
  5. University Catalog wording change without apparent consultation and approval by the Faculty Senate regarding the appeals process by the Academic Appeals Committee to be further researched and discussed with Bob Ehrlich of the Academic Appeals Committee.
  6. Motion proposed by Bob Smith regarding budget allocation principles and cost/student ratios between schools: to discuss this further with the Provost at the our next meeting; to ask Bob Smith to present the motion at a future Senate meeting.
  7. Faculty Senate meeting to be held at Prince William or Arlington campus as suggested at the last meeting. It was noted that a similar attempt in the past was not well attended.

 

V.                 Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Meg Caniano

Clerk, Faculty Senate