CNU Faculty Senate Minutes
18 February 2011
DSU Board Room
Senators Present: Adamitis,
Carlson, Connell, Hall, Kennedy, Mollick, Pollard, Puaca, Rahim, Redick, Selim, Velkey, Von Burg
Guests : Jean Filetti, Associate Professor
of English; Carolyn Ericson, Associate Professor of Social Work; Marion Manton,
Associate Professor of Sociology;
Ross Snare, Student Assembly
I.
Call to Order: 3:04
p.m.
II.
Guest Presentations
A.
Faculty Mentoring
Committee Update (Jean Filetti)
Prof. Filetti presented this report.
Action: Senators Mollick
and Von Burg moved to accept the report.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes
B.
Proposal for B.A. in
Social Work (Carolyn Erickson and Marion Manton)
In 1981 Social Work was approved as a concentration in Sociology. When the program sought accreditation,
which requires an independent major in Social Work, the University consulted
with SCHEV and received permission to report a major in Social Work under the hegis code for Sociology and to print "B.A. in Social
Work" on the students' transcripts.
Last year this designation changed to a "B.A. in Sociology with a
Major in Social Work."
Because this change may negatively impact licensure, graduate school
applications and program accreditation, the Department is applying to SCHEV for
a B.A. in Social Work. The
creation of an independent B.A. in Social Work would also benefit Sociology,
since under the current catalog students pursuing the Major in Social Work may
take as few as two courses in Sociology even though the degree will read "B.A.
in Sociology."
Action: Senators Puaca
and Lewis moved to approve the proposal.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes
III. Approval of January Meeting Minutes
Action: Redick
and Velkey moved to approve the minutes.
Vote in Favor: Adamitis, Carlson, Connell, Kennedy, Mollick,
Pollard, Puaca, Rahim, Redick, Selim, Velkey, Von Burg
Abstain: Hall
Motion Passes
IV. PresidentÕs Report
This report includes information on the move to the
3-3 load; new task forces on STEM initiatives and the Student Scholar
Associate Proposal; a Senate working group charged with clarifying the tenure
process; the Senate assessment; faculty elections; and study abroad.
Discussion of STEM Task Force: It
may be preferable to have more representation on the Task Force from NBS than the
department chairs, since multiple perspectives would be valuable to the
process. In addition, the current
chair in Math is interim.
V.
Committee Reports
A. Faculty Senate Goals
1. Objective 1: Hiring and Retention
a) Strategy 1D, Dossiers (Lewis): Senator
Lewis has already received feedback on this proposal
from several faculty members and now asks Senators to encourage even more
faculty to provide feedback no later than the first week of March.
2. Objective 2: Teaching, Scholarship and Service
a) Strategy 2, Core Advising (Kennedy): The
Office of Student Success will survey students to assess the Core Advising
Program, and Core Advisors will be individually evaluated.
Discussion: Does the decision to
formally evaluate service as a Core Advisor have implications for the UE-4
since other service is not evaluated?
The justification for the evaluation is that the Core Advisors are being
paid for their work, which makes the Program different from other service
activities.
3. Objective
3: Standards and Practices
B. Chairs' Compensation (Hall): The
committee met and is currently drafting a proposal.
C. Student Assembly: The proposed revisions
to the 11-12 University Handbook (see
below, Handbook Change #9) include removing faculty representation on certain
University Committee on Student Discipline hearing panels and staffing those
panels with students selected by CHECS. The Student Assembly supports the
creation of panels that are entirely student-run provided that the Student
Assembly has the right to choose the student representatives.
D. ChairsÕ Reports
1. A&H (Adamitis): The A&H Chairs have met once since the January Senate meeting. The most significant issue under
consideration is the possible elimination or reconfiguration of the Liberal
Learning Emphasis.
Discussion: Although the Senate
liaisons on the University Curriculum Committee and Liberal Learning Council
confirmed that problems with the Liberal Learning Emphasis (LLE) have been
reported, specifically concerning scheduling and pre-requisites, the Senate
would nonetheless like more detailed information about these concerns. It is possible that the Core
Advising Program will help to minimize difficulties with the LLE in the future. The University might consider
exempting students who pursue a minor from the LLE on the grounds that a minor
serves the same essential function as the LLE: to provide depth in a subject
area outside the major.
2. SS (Kidd): The most significant issue
under consideration is the possible elimination or reconfiguration of the
Liberal Learning Emphasis.
3. NBS (Brash): No report.
E. Department
LiaisonsÕ Reports: None.
VI. Old Business
A.
Internships/Community Service/Independent Studies
(Pollard)
Senator Pollard presented this draft motion:
Whereas
currently there is no consistent compensation of faculty for overseeing
internships and independent studies from college to college, department to
department, the Faculty Senate recommends that such compensation be made
consistent across the campus.
In
keeping with departments (e.g., Government, Psychology) that offer
compensation, the Faculty Senate recommends the following formula: For every 15
students whom a faculty member oversees, that faculty member will be eligible
for a 3 credit course reduction.
Discussion: The Senate was generally
in favor of the motion but had some questions: (1) Would it be better to grant
the reduction based on the number of credit hours taught rather than the number
of students taught, since credits for any course may vary? If so, then the reduction would
compensate for every 45 credit hours taught. (2) Would there be a time limit imposed on this policy, e.g.
the 45 credit hours must be taught within a period of X semesters/academic
years? The Senate did not think
that such a limit would be necessary.
Senator Pollard will revise the motion and present it for a vote at the March
meeting.
VII.
New Business
A.
Distinguished Professor Calendar
According to the University Handbook,
the Senate must approve the calendar of review procedures and protocols for
Distinguished Professors.
Action: Senators Velkey and Lewis moved
to approve this calendar.
Vote in Favor: Adamitis, Carlson, Connell, Hall, Kennedy, Mollick, Pollard, Rahim, Redick, Selim, Velkey, Von Burg
Abstain: Puaca
Motion Passes
B.
Change to Overload Policy (Kennedy)
The Undergraduate Academic Status Committee (ASC) is concerned that the
compressed Extended Spring Schedule makes taking more than 4 credits
inadvisable and recommends that the University limit student to 4 credits for
the Extended Spring Schedule and require students who wish to take more than 4
credits to petition the ASC for permission. The full proposal is here; it will not affect the 2011
schedule, since students have already registered.
Action:
Senators Kennedy and Mollick moved to approve the
proposal.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes
C.
University Instructional Development Committee
(Pollard)
In February the University sent a small group of faculty and administrators to
an IDEA conference in order to learn how the University might best use the
information IDEA's provide. Senator Pollard, who attended the conference, presented this draft motion for a faculty-driven academic
standing committee on instructional development that would focus on IDEA.
Discussion: The main points raised
in the discussion are as follows:
--Senator Mollick's subcommittee on the Virtual
Teaching Center is investigating this issue as well and will confer with
Senator Pollard.
--The committee should consider whether the University should continue to use
IDEA.
--The committee should take into
consideration that IDEA data is relevant to more than faculty development,
e.g., Major Assessment and Evaluation, Departmental Annual Reports, Program
Review Reports, etc.
--The committee should consider the ways in which using the online version IDEA
will affect the data collected.
--The use of IDEA data on the UE-4 is currently limited to two scores. The committee should consider
additional ways of using the IDEA data for faculty evaluation.
Senators Kennedy and Velkey will work with Pollard on
revising the motion.
Action: Senators Pollard and Puaca move
to accept the draft motion for further review.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes
D.
Handbook Changes (Brunke
and Redick)
The following summary provides the rationale for the proposed Handbook changes and explains the substantive revisions approved by the
Senate but does not include corrections of grammatical or typographical errors
or changes made for the sake of clarity.
Click on the links for each Handbook
change to see all suggested changes; the Senate's proposed revisions are highlighted
in green.
#1 Family and Medical Leave
Rationale: In
response to the COACHE survey and discussion sessions, probationary faculty
members indicated that they were unclear about how FMLA affected the completion
of the probationary period. The
current section states that FMLA has no effect, which is true UNLESS the
faculty member requests the extension.
This change clearly communicates to faculty that such
a request will be entertained by the Provost and sets the maximum two
year limit for delaying the tenure review.
No substantive changes proposed by the Senate.
Rationale: Change provides flexibility
for hiring in exceptional circumstances.
No substantive changes proposed by the
Senate.
Rationale: The proposed changes clarify, update, and
correct graduate program information.
No substantive changes proposed by the
Senate.
Rationale: The proposed changes clarify, update, and correct
graduate program information.
No substantive changes proposed by the
Senate.
#5 Calendar
for Distinguished Professor
Rationale: Establishes a new calendar for Distinguished
Professor review and protocols.
No substantive changes proposed by the Senate.
Rationale: Aligns the steps with the new evaluation
calendar.
No substantive changes proposed by the
Senate.
#7 FIG Grants
Rationale: Allows staff to receive FIG
grants.
No substantive changes proposed by the Senate.
Rationale: This proposed change is a response to the Supreme CourtÕs decision in the Garcetti case which involved a sanction against a public sector employee for making public comments about issues within his office that were also matters of public concern. Although that case did not involve a university or academic freedom, the case left open the possibility that faculty expression of views about matters of concern both inside the classroom and with respect to university governance might not be protected by the First Amendment. This change makes it clear that at CNU, expression of these views would be protected by academic freedom and would not by subject to sanction by the university.
The proposed section also updates faculty research responsibilities; the current language does not recognize the increased importance of scholarship at CNU.
No substantive changes proposed by the
Senate.
#9 Code of
Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct
Rationale: Updates to the student code.
Senate Revisions
p. 5, Christopher Newport
University supports and encourages an alcohol-free educational experience. The University fully complies with the
alcohol regulations of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Justification: The Faculty Senate disagrees with the new language
as it infringes on the legal right of students who are of age and who want to
exercise their right to drink alcoholic beverages. It also discourages faculty
who would socialize with students who are of age to drink alcoholic beverages.
p. 7, Using or
possessing the identification card of another or allowing oneÕs own card to
be used by another is a violation of university policy and may also be
considered an Honor Code violation.
Justification: The phrase Òor possessingÓ creates a violation that may not be just. For example a person who picks up a lost ID in order to return it would be in violation.
p. 10, Students listed on the incident report and alleged to have violated policy will be notified in writing of the charges stemming from the allegation(s). This form is referred to as a Charge Notice.
Justification: The Faculty Senate recommends that Òin writingÓ not be eliminated from the text. It is the standard that students are held to, so CNU should also be required to notify the student in writing.
p. 11,
Representatives from each academic class,
including graduate students, the student body will be appointed
by the Dean of Students elected by their peers in
consultation with the Academic Deans.
Justification: The Faculty Senate would concur that non academic violations be taken care of by a student body if that body were elected rather than appointed.
p. 12, The final
decision of findings of fact by a Hearing Panel will be determined by a
simple majority vote. The final
decision of findings of fact by an Honor
Council must be unanimous.
Justification: The Faculty Senate
recommends cutting Òfinding of factÓ in both cases per this paragraph as it
gives extra gravity to the decision by saying that the panel establishes the
facts of the case.
p. 17, The student will be provided with a written statement of charges in advance of the hearing so as to allow the student time to prepare a response.
Justification:
Consistency
with p. 10.
p. 19, The Dean of Students will review the
appeal request and may choose to review the entire record of the case.
Justification: The Dean should review all of the material presented.
p. 19, During
the period of suspension the student is not allowed on property owned or
operated by the University or at University sponsored events without
permission.
Justification: Barring students from campus while they are under academic suspension does not make sense given the mission of the university. We want to encourage students to engage academically.
Rationale:
Changes to the Honor
System.
Senate Revisions
p. 3, Due to the serious
nature of academic violations, faculty members will make every a
reasonable effort to resolve any suspicions of academic dishonesty in a timely
manner, typically within five (5) business academic days of discovery of
the issue.
The review panel decision regarding
what, if any, violations occurred whether to sustain the decision of the instructor
will be determined by a simple majority vote.
Justification: The new language recognizes the instructor's role in determining whether a violation has occurred.
p. 5, The Dean of Students will review the
request and may choose to review the entire record of the case. The Dean
of Students may also meet with the student, the faculty member and/or panel
members. The Dean of Students may also consult with the Academic Dean of the
college in which the behavior in question occurred when rendering a decision.
The action of the Dean of Students will be communicated to the student in
writing.
Justification: The Dean of Students should review all of the material presented and may
make a judgment independent of the Academic Dean.
#11 Academic
Standing Committees
Rationale: The changes bring the Handbook in line with existing practices and clarify voting eligibility. In addition, these changes include the dissolution of the Academic Advising Committee, whose functions have now been assumed by the Office of Student Success.
4) Voting
Eligibility
a) All
elected and appointed instructional, administrative and professional
faculty members are voting members unless specified otherwise.
b) All ex-officio members of academic standing
committees and their designees are non-voting unless specified otherwise. Ex-officio
members include but are not limited to: Provost, Vice Provost, Associate
Provost, Vice Presidents, Deans, Directors, Associate Directors, Coordinators,
Executive Assistant to the President for Student Success, University Librarian,
University Registrar, University Counsel, Chief Information Officer, the
Faculty Senate liaisons.
Justification: Further clarifies ex
officio committee members.
#12 Faculty
Senate Constitution and By-Laws
Rationale: These changes
bring the Handbook in line with
existing practices.
No substantive changes proposed by the
Senate.
Rationale: According to Handbook policy (Peer Review Step 15,
pp. 116-117), faculty have the right to submit written
responses to the FRCÕs recommendation to the
Provost. Faculty would be at a
disadvantage when writing such a response in cases where the FRC does not agree
with the DRC, if the FRC does not provide a justification for their
recommendation.
#14
Uniform Command Team/Emergency Policy Group
Rationale: Change required to change the name, membership
and charge of the committee and to add a new subcommittee.
No substantive changes proposed by the
Senate.
The Senate voted on Changes 9-10 separately,
since these were subject to substantial revisions.
Handbook Change #9
Discussion: The Student
Handbook has already been updated and the proposed changes to the University Handbook are already in
effect. Which takes precedence, the Student
Handbook or the University Handbook?
Action: Senators Kennedy and Lewis moved to approve Handbook Change #9.
Vote in Favor: Carlson, Hall, Kennedy, Mollick,
Pollard, Rahim, Redick, Selim, Velkey, Von
Burg
Vote Against: Adamitis and Puaca
Abstain: Connell
Motion Passes
Handbook Change #10
Action: Senators Kennedy and Lewis moved
to approve Handbook Change #10.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes
Handbook Changes #1, 2, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14
Action: Senators Hall and Von Burg
moved to approve these changes.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes
VIII.
Other
A.
Emerita Status for Prof. Betty Anglin
Action:
Senators Redick and Pollard move to recommend
approval for the resolution.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes
B.
Institutional Referral
Forms (IRFs)
The
volume of IRFs is such that it may no longer be
feasible for the Office of Student Success to respond to every IRF. It has been suggested that Core Advisors respond to IRFs and forward forms to the Office of Student Success as
appropriate.
The meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m.