CNU Faculty Senate Minutes

17 September 2010

Boardroom, David Student Union

 

Senators Present: Adamitis, Brunke, Carlson, Connell, Hall, Kennedy (arrived at 3:16 p.m.), Lewis, Mollick, Pollard, Puaca, Rahim, Redick, Selim, Velkey (arrived at 3:55 p.m.), Von Burg

 

I.        President Carlson called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

II.     The Senate acknowledged the approval of August Meeting Minutes.

A.     President's Report
Please read the attached President's Report, which includes important information about Faculty Responsibilities During Campus Emergencies.

Main Points of the Discussion
Armed Robbery

—Faculty should consider completing crisis training and should become familiar with the CNU Alert Site (http://www.cnualert.info/training/index.html).

—Because faculty and students typically turn their cells phones off during class and because there is no reception at all in some classrooms, it is possible that some faculty and students who were in class at the time of the incident did not receive text messages regarding the armed robbery at CNU Village.  Faculty members have requested that the administration send campus-wide alerts through the classroom phones in addition to cell phones.   

—Some faculty did not immediately perceive the seriousness of a Level 2 emergency.  The administration might consider using a strong word such as "lockdown" in the text/phone messages for Level 2 alerts in order to convey the severity of the situation. 

—The Credit Union has been robbed multiple times.  Perhaps the University should consider recommending against having banks near campus.

—The Jordan Construction employees who were working on campus at the time of the event were alerted to the armed robbery. 

Hurricane: Campus Evacuation

—Some faculty do not use Scholar as a teaching tool, and so they became apprehensive when the Provost asked all faculty to post one week's worth of assignments on Scholar so that we would be able to keep classes running virtually if the University had to close due to the hurricane.

—Students and faculty who lose power during a hurricane and its aftermath will not be able to keep up with assignments that are managed through Scholar.

—Science labs do not lend themselves to online management.  How would missed labs be made up?

—In the event of campus-wide evacuation it is possible that some students may not have a place to go or that some may not be able to get home (e.g., because going home means traveling into the path of hurricane).  The University might consider creating a shelter or devising other means of ensuring safe housing for stranded students. 

Digital Measures

—Some administrators have requested paper copies of the EVAL-6 reports generated through Digital Measures, while others will read the electronic reports.  This creates the potential for inequities in evaluation, because the paper version does not include all of the information faculty members entered into the electronic program. 

 

3:30 p.m. Out of Order: The meeting temporarily proceeded out of order so that the Senate could vote on the final version of the Senate Goals for AY 10-11 and the BAC Memo. The meeting returned to order at 3:33 p.m.

III.  Committee Reports

A.     Faculty Senate Goals

1.       Objective 1: Hiring and Retention

a)       Strategy 1C (Digital Measures): see above II.A "Discussion"; Senator Lewis requested that Senators ask faculty in their assigned departments to complete this questionnaire. 

b)      Strategy 1D (Content of Dossiers): Senator Lewis has formed a subcommittee comprising two faculty members per college, all of whom are former/current department chairs or Senators: Profs. Brash, Filetti, Hamilton, Hasbrouck, Lewis, Mollick.

c)       Strategy 1E (Assessment Criteria for Annual Reviews): Senator Adamitis formed a subcommittee last spring to create assessment criteria for the Annual Review: Profs. Adamitis, Brash, Bradie, Keeling, Rizova, Underwood, Von Burg.  The subcommittee is currently developing a qualitative rubric and will meet in October to review a working draft.

2.       Objective 2: Teaching, Scholarship and Service

a)       Strategy 2A (Virtual Teaching Center): Senator Mollick consulted with Prof. Marsha Sprague, Director of the M.A.T. Program and will research best practices at the top liberal arts institutions.  The establishment of the Center will require funding. 

b)      Strategy 2D (Faculty Awards): Senator Pollard formed a subcommittee to establish faculty awards for teaching, research/creative activity and service: Profs. Adamitis, Lambert, Lent, Pollard, Rahim, Sullens, Von Burg.  The committee has already met and developed working draft of a proposal. 

3.       Objective 3: Standards and Practices

a)       Strategy 3A (Student Success): Senator Kennedy met with Prof. Guajardo, who reported that freshmen, Core Advisors and faculty teaching freshmen will be asked to assess Student Success initiatives via questionnaires this fall. 

b)      Strategy 3B (Faculty Recognition Site):  Senator Puaca received a plan for the site from University Architect Hunter Bristow, but its location is still under discussion. Approximately 110-115 faculty who have served the University for 10+ years will be recognized. The establishment of the site will require funding.

c)       Strategy 3C (Child Care): Senator Hall proposed creating a social and commercial networking site for CNU faculty/staff on the portal.  Faculty could use the site to share information regarding child-care services, among other things; students could post ads for babysitting services, etc.

d)      Strategy 3D (Office of International Studies): Senator Redick met with Prof. Velardi, Chair of the International Studies Advisory Committee.  The University will reestablish the Office of International Initiatives, position it administratively within the academic side of the University, and house it physically in the offices currently occupied by Student Counseling Services.

B.     Chairs' Reports

1.       A&H (Prof. Filetti): The A & H Chairs met for a luncheon meeting in August before the start of school as well as on Tuesday, September 7th and covered a lot of information regarding the following:  searches in various departments slated for academic year 2010-2011 and expectations for hiring candidates from top schools, DOSSIER grants (all faculty are encouraged to apply, regardless of rank), Digital Measures and some of the issues with it (inability to upload some documents, such as grants, the same way we can upload our published articles, loss of formatting in the "Executive Summary" and "Addendum," and general confusion on where to place some material).  It was also noted that advising now falls under teaching, yet the UE4 counts core advising as service.  The chairs covered a lot of housekeeping information (due dates for ARs, EVAL-6s, and reweighting requests).  The possible class size adjustments were also discussed (goal of 15-19 in English 123, ULLC 223, WI, and language instruction classes and the reduction/elimination of super sections of 100).  The College is also going to be continuing its work on the development of a Renaissance Studies minor, and a committee will be formally constituted and begin work on that this fall.  Finally, all departments were charged with developing "one sheets" that can be used by the Admission Office as parents and prospective students tour the campus.  These will probably be due by the first Open House in October, but the draft due date has not been set. 

Main Points in the Discussion of Class Size

—The Senate should help to ensure equity regarding class size adjustments across colleges, as appropriate to disciplines and specific courses.

—Lowering class sizes will require adding faculty positions, yet it unclear whether we will be able to do so.

—During the budget crunch two years ago an ad hoc task force prepared recommendations for curricular efficiencies to all departments.  These recommendations included expectations for minimum enrollments in specific courses as well as for the sum total of courses taught by the department as whole.  Will departments still be held to these enrollment expectations for the sum total of courses taught by the department as whole when we adjust class sizes? 

—Some departments have been told that the "supersized" courses may be capped at 150 in AY 11-12.

—Some faculty would prefer to teach two sections with approximately 50 students in each rather than a single course with 100 students. Would this be possible in the future?

—There are discrepancies among the Colleges regarding faculty incentives for teaching "supersize" courses.    Senators will consult the chairs of their assigned departments to find out what policies are in place at the departmental level. 

2.       SS (Prof. Kidd): The Chairs spent the bulk of their time talking about Eval-AR schedules and extensions, weights for restricted faculty, and a general discussion of faculty hiring "pedigree." They took no official actions.

3.       NBS: No report.

IV.  Old Business

A.     Faculty Senate Goals: Final Vote
Motion: Senators Kennedy and Lewis moved to approve the document.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes

B.     BAC Memo: Final Vote
Motion: Senators Pollard and Mollick moved to approve the document.
Vote in Favor: Unanimous
Motion Passes

C.     Revised Freshmen Continuance Policy
Motion: Senators Lewis and Kennedy moved to approve the policy and accepted a friendly amendment that the University Academic Status Committee review all appeals. 
Vote in Favor: Adamitis, Brunke, Carlson, Connell, Lewis, Mollick, Pollard, Puaca, Rahim, Redick, Selim, Velkey, Von Burg
Abstain: Hall

Motion Passes

The Senate would like information regarding freshmen continuance issues last year.  Specifically: How many of these students remained at CNU and succeeded?  How many remained but did not succeed?  How many left the University?

D.     Scholars Associates Program (Velkey)
Background: At the August meeting Senator Velkey presented a proposal to create a Scholar's Associates program at CNU, and the Senate asked for further information regarding the benefits of the Program.

 

Senator Velkey presented this revised proposal at the September meeting.

 

Motion: Senators Velkey and Redick moved to submit the proposal to the administration.  The motion was tabled, and the Senate recommended referring the proposal to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee for evaluation.

Main Points in the Discussion

—The Senate discussed the question of whether students should receive compensation for their work, since their contributions seem similar to those of graduate assistants, who are paid.  One argument against offering compensation is that students can receive three credits for working as a Scholars Associate. 

—The proposal includes a recommendation for adding a 400-level course, ULLC 496: Scholars Associate for "Course X," to the curriculum.  Some Senators wondered whether 400-level credit is appropriate, since the nature of this course would be different from a typical academic course or seminar at the 400-level.  ——The sense of the Senate was that the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee should review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Senate.

—Faculty participating in Scholars Program would effectively be teaching a 3-credit course in addition to their regular load, which raises the question of how faculty would be compensated for teaching ULLC 496.  One view was that faculty should not be compensated; they would instead receive "Highest Valued" credit on the UE-4.  In addition, teaching the course is voluntary, so faculty could choose not to participate.  The other view was that faculty should be compensated for teaching credit-bearing courses.  In the past, some departments offered course load reductions of one course for every X internships, methods classes, etc., taught.  This practice fell into abeyance during the budget crisis and should be reconsidered now.

V.     New Business

A.     Handbook Committee
Senators Adamitis, Kennedy and Von Burg will review the Handbook section on University Committees in order to clarify the language on voting procedures and membership.

B.     Faculty Pay for Summer Courses
Some programs, particularly the M.A.T. Program, include summer courses among  their regular curricular offerings.  However, salaries are such that the University is having difficulty attracting quality faculty to teach these courses.   The SEC is currently researching salaries at other Virginia institutions and will report back to the Senate at the October meeting.

VI.  Other

A.     Charles Schroeder, Senior Associate for Noel-Levitz, will be on campus on October 5-6 to review the Core Advising Program.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.