MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
Jim Bennett, Rei Berroa, Rick Coffinberger, Dave Kuebrich, Jim Sanford,
Cliff Sutton, Susan Trencher
Call to Order: The
meeting was called to order at 1:07 p.m.
Esther Elstun is recuperating well from her surgery earlier
III. Old Business
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.
faculty representative to the Board of Visitors: The BOV is scheduled to vote on on this item at their next
meeting (October 5, 2005).
Meeting re CNHS reorganization and renaming sponsored by the Office of the
Provost and the Faculty Senate (later scheduled September 29, 2005)
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
Clerk, Faculty Senate