faculty-senate-minutes-12-3-12-final-draft-

2012-2013 Faculty Senate MINUTES—December 3rd 2012 Faculty Senate—East Tennessee State University UPCOMING MEETING: Date: January 28 2:45 pm Forum, Culp Center FOLLOWING MEETING: Date: February 11 2:45 p.m Forum, Culp Center Present: Dave Arnall, Beth Baily, Jim Bitter, Sally Blowers, Wesley Buerkle, Doug Burgess, Randy Byington, Daryl Carter, Charles Collins, Bruce Dalton, Don Davis, Mohamed Elgazzar, Susan Epps, William Fisher, Virginia Foley, Allan Forsman, Rosalind Gann, Ron Hamdy, Evelyn Hammonds, Jill Hayter, Ken Kellogg, Dhirendra Kumar, Tom Laughlin, Theresa McGarry, Lorianne Mitchell, Alan Peiris, Kelly Price, Susan Rasmussen, Thomas Schacht, Eric Sellers, Melissa Shafer, Jerry Shuttle, Taylor Stevenson, Bill Stone, Kim Summey, Jerry Taylor, Jim Thigpen, Paul Trogen, Jennifer Vanover-Hall, Teressa Wexler, Meng-Yang Shu, Ron Zucker Excused: Guests: Emmett Essin, Rick Hess, Kathryn Sharp, Yue Zou Dr Bert Bach, David Champouillon CALL TO ORDER: President Byington called the meeting to order at 2:49 Provost Bach expressed his pleasure at meeting with the Faculty Senate again this year and invited further questions and discussion if anyone needed elaboration on any of his responses Dr Bach began by addressing the first submitted question, “What is your vision for the future of ETSU study abroad programs” He replied that the general objective of study abroad is a very high priority and he put his vision for the future within the context of what has happened in the past Since 2006 until the current academic year, ETSU has grown from 18 students studying abroad in programs to 132 students in 11 programs The good news is there has been a significant percentage increase The bad news is it’s a percentage of a very small number Dr Bach would like to grow that number in several ways; he would like to expand the number of programs involved in study abroad and would like to expand the types of opportunities involved Opportunities for either summer or semester study in a significant number of majors is an objective and not just an elective that a student might take, but a course that is a major part of a concentration There are only a couple of programs in which that is the case now Dr Bach continued that he would like to see an integration of study abroad into the major as an option at least minimally in a concentration for a significant number of programs and have those kinds of options recommended in catalog checklists He would like to see a transcript recognition program for increased participation that would be called “graduated with international distinction” It is currently an existing policy that involves language in study abroad as well as courses in a major but it’s a policy we have few students taking advantage of Dr Bach finished by stating that he would like to see enhancement of support for development of new programs and logistical support for faculty A number of faculty have stated that the logistical issues of dealing with arranging for students to study abroad is challenging Senator Zucker stated that he was very interested in the study abroad program and inquired how one pursues it Dr Bach replied that the first step would be to take a look at the curriculum in the Computer Science Department and ask are there courses that would be applicable in any way and what would be the market? If you determine that there is a market, the next thing is to talk to go to the Honors College and the study abroad coordinator about resources and expectations for the individual students Then you would need to get departmental and college support Senator Zucker responded that he did that and basically was told “go out and it” He said “what I do” and they said “well you’ve got to go line up some students” He wished there was some kind of mentoring or guidance from successful programs that would come back and say “here is how you go about it” Dr Bach asked if there was a particular course which is a part of a concentration or something in his program that would be fulfilled by this activity Senator Zucker answered that he didn’t know He teaches computer science and wondered what kind of course would be applicable that would be acquirable overseas Provost Bach replied that he could answer the question of how you might find some financial support from students, of how you might find some logistics for facilitating the course, but you are asking is why this experience would be relevant to your students Senator Zucker asked how he can make it relevant in terms of international study Can he take a course he teaches here at ETSU and just teach it over in Italy? Dr Bach stated that he would not see the point in that; just taking a course that you’re teaching here and teaching it there would be pointless Senator Schacht asked if an instructor developed a course that was appropriate for an international program, other than getting that course inserted into the catalog, what systems exist for sort of internally marketing that course to students? Is there a way to get all undergraduate advisors up to speed on it so they can perhaps recommend it? Are there other systems that a faculty member can plug into or are we all essentially individual salespeople? Dr Bach responded that, for example, he sat down and had a conversation with Don Davis relative to the particular course that he’s teaching in Italy He has a relatively limited enrollment in the course and his question was how the student is aware of this course Does it actually meet a concentration requirement in the art department? Don said it does meet a requirement Dr Bach asked if it states that the catalog Don indicated it didn’t at that time Dr Bach thinks there are some opportunities there Senator Davis agreed that is the big issue - getting it publicized in a sense of incorporated it into the curriculum catalog statements Dr Bach said Senator Davis has a very successful course with very limited enrollment which potentially is a significant part of that curriculum but it’s not really being communicated He thinks we are not doing as good a job with that as we should and we should make it an objective to try to better Dr Bach then moved to the next question –“While the strategic plan focused on maintaining a cadre of well qualified faculty, the focus has been on compensation Are there any thoughts that share other mechanisms relative to faculty retention?” He concurred with the position taken by the senate and by others that the first priority needs to be compensation In addition to that there are several other things that one might consider One would be encouraging the use of differential loading and recognizing and encouraging recognition for each aspect of the universities’ mission in those loading procedures A second area would be providing and incentivizing more interdisciplinary activity that gathers the faculty around themes or clusters Another would be providing increased numbers of opportunities for faculty development: IDC grants, RDC grants, Presidential grants, purposeful use of Non-Instructional Assignments with clearly projected outcomes Another is seeking greater visibility and support for faculty to engage in curricular initiatives such as study abroad for which they would find appropriate support which leads into their own engagement and to students’ engagement President Byington clarified that ETSU has never really done a survey of quality work life issues among faculty Is there quality of work life issues that could easily be addressed maybe with a minimal amount of monetary? Senator Schacht said that the question came from looking at our current strategic plan which, when it comes to the issue of what are we going to to make ETSU a better place to work, the only thing mentioned is compensation And surely there have to be other things we could but it is not on our plan to even be looking for them 3 Dr Bach replied that we obviously have a very strong benefits package at the university He has not heard a litany of quality of life issues from the faculty with the exception of the salary issue Nothing else has been collectively brought to his attention Senator Bitter agreed that, for the most part, his personal quality of work experience at ETSU has been wonderful for 17 years He stated that if he hears anything from faculty, it is that there is a really uneven mentoring program across the campus There are some programs that assign three different mentors to a brand new faculty member and work with them yearly on their development and there are other programs which have next to nothing He suggested they if we look at anything it would be looking at what has been really effective in some departments on campus and make recommendations to those other departments Dr Bach stated that in the visioning process one of the themes that has been proposed does in fact have to with the development of an instructional development faculty teaching/learning center etc That was one of the recommendations that came forth from the last SACS reaffirmation effort and in fact such a center was established The review that was done by faculty underscored exactly that - that collecting kinds of support efforts of this sort are less effective than discipline specific Senator Blowers asked if there is any hope for establishing some sort of central consultant repository with experts in various areas in higher education teaching pedagogy that might be available to specific colleges Dr Bach responded that if you look at the recommendations that are being put forth by that subcommittee to the visioning committee, that is one of the proposals being put forth Dr Bach then moved to the question regarding the role of online education in the US and at ETSU, specifically the massive online program The question asked of Dr Bach was “What I see as the future of online education and how might it impact ETSU” He stated that one might look at what has happened with respect to online education in recent years There has been a relatively exponential increase in the percentage of overall enrollment being produced through various online technologies For example, from fall 2011-2012, a there has been a 19% increase in a synchronous online education During the same period of time, asynchronous online enrollment actually decreased about 12% There has been a significant increase in the terms of resources that have been placed on qualitative addressing those courses There has been about $213,000 in course development incentive dollars to faculty Faculty incentive dollars have been increased for synchronous online courses as well as asynchronous A large part of the answer is going to be not single online course development, but programs or significant components of programs that can be offered online There has been some funding made available to try to realize that potential We have about a little over $120,000 in funding in Spring-Fall 2012 which has been awarded to departments to develop online programs He continued that with respect to MOOCs, the idea for development at ETSU is different from courses that are offered elsewhere The Visioning Taskforce has recommended that there be some evaluation of the potential future of MOOCs Also Dr King has put together an advisory committee that is basically looking at logistics; it is not looking at academic feasibility or issues that are going to have to involve faculty or colleges, but it’s simply exploring how you could pay the bills if the courses don’t charge anything They are asking if we could work it out in terms of logistics and then in terms of working with faculty is this something we want to relative to our curriculum Theoretically, the benefits for students that they have pointed out are a non-punitive way of determining college preparation If a student is not paying for a course, a student might choose to take the course simply for the experience, or the opportunity to earn college credit at a significant discount or the opportunity to learn for free Benefits for ETSU are to provide access to education to many people who otherwise would not attempt college level courses and to provide monetary rewards for faculty of record and tuition dollars for the university if credit is awarded Again, this are all theoretical Then two big questions that have been posed for which there isn’t an answer are ‘How can free online courses be used to lower total cost of college education for our students?’ And ‘how can free online courses provide access to higher education to those who otherwise would never attempt taking college level courses?’ I think the best approach is to look at the logistics then look at what would make sense for us 4 Senator Bitter commented that he would apply the same approach to general online teaching He would like to know what kind of value is the RODP to ETSU Are we using it, does it seem to be effective, are we getting something out of it? Then, in a larger sense, technology is exploding exponentially Next semester we can start doing lecture captures in the classroom and we have all of these things happening at such high speeds that within ten years there may be no textbooks needed anymore They will all be downloaded to an iPad We will have the ability to deal with things that are not even part of our campus At some point it would be useful to have a discussion between the administration and faculty about what constitutes a good balance At what point are we so online that we’re walled in Or that we’re so online that we’re not really a university anymore, and does that matter? He asked Dr Bach for his thoughts on those questions Dr Bach replied that ETSU has chosen not to be a full participant in RODP Some of our programs, nursing for example, participates, but we chose relative to online programs not to go the RODP route and to develop our own online course It was purely a business decision We did not want to pay the overhead tax to the Tennessee Board of Regents that we would otherwise retain for the same course if we offered it through ETSU’s online system If you ask who is a leader in online education in the state among universities, certainly we would be one of them If the question was who is going to be a leader in online education RODP, let us just say we wouldn’t be the leader If it were not for nursing, we wouldn’t be there at all in a significant way You will hear the point being made that the qualitative scale there are high quality online courses and there are courses that are not really good online courses When the person makes that point, they’re assuming that it is not the case with other forms of delivery Dr Bach stated that he would leave it to us to determine whether that hypothesis is true and whether using that arbiter for evaluating online education is appropriate Senator Schacht commented that there are two different ways to think about online delivery One is just pedagogue and quality of instruction The other is the idea that this open online education is actually being perceived as an alternative to a degree He believes that to the extent ETSU is invested in degree programs that lead to some kind of a professional license, that we are insulated from that so long as the licensure laws don’t suddenly change to allow one to become a physician or a school teacher or social worker in a wholly online environment Provost Bach stated that ETSU has been conducting focus groups with employers in the area and abroad as a part of performance funding There was one such meeting this morning There were 14 people there representing various businesses in different sectors One of the questions asked that related to online programs was ‘do you value education in various pedagogues differently’ The other question directly related to critical thinking, using writing in a discipline, being able to communicate orally, and being able to perform successfully in groups The question they asked was does the fostering of those student skills and abilities lend itself to an online education as opposed to clinical education There was a long discussion on communication skills Standard interviewing questions were raised One of the participants hypothesized that these skills could not be successfully dealt with in an online environment At which time, two other people, one from Mountain States and another from Bristol Motor Speedway took the opposite position If you look at the MOOCs for example, if you look at the programing that’s being discussed, it is largely is in natural sciences and engineering There has not been a great bit of visibility of any success in the areas of the humanities, social sciences, fine and performing arts, etc It comes back to the first point: will it work for the logistics, and then second, how does it fit the particular discipline We have a math proposal made to Dr King that would basically be an online certificate offered without tuition What the department believes is that students, who obtain these skills, are actually going to matriculate into the credit program Senator Stone commented that we’re thinking about years of undergraduate education He wondered if we might benefit instead by thinking about learners and facilitators rather than students and teachers The advantage of looking at it slightly differently is that it broadens the market The whole community becomes our market and education becomes a continuing thing that goes on through the whole lifestyle People who are looking for jobs now want very specific job skills Certification is a way of doing that Because these things are moving targets, it provides us with the flexibility to change rapidly as the needs for different certifications changes The way we can make more money in the future without building expensive learning resources is the internet Dr Bach asked if anyone attended the public health lecture given at the Millennium Center The take away message from that is that there is a significant investment in the front end cost - MOOCs is very expensive The people creating MOOCs aren’t fools; they know there is going to be a revenue stream that is going to come from this and it goes back to exactly what Senator Stone said Senator Taylor stated while building next semester’s courses that he might want to link to a Khan Academy or perhaps even a Eudacity course as a textbook in a d2l site Is that something the university would support? Provost Bach replied that there are two different issues Relative to the Khan Academy, he doesn’t see any reason to prohibit using these tools as a part of the learning environment for a course The other part of the question is the more problematic one - the credit of the courses SACS hasn’t entered into this yet The Western Commission in Colorado said they are going to accept transfer courses from Eudacity You could not that in SACS You could on the other hand have a parallel course which you offer on ground and a student could take the final exam using whatever he learned from where ever he learned it The issue of transferability and the Eudacity model is the question This is the kind of work the logistical group is doing Currently the logistical group has no faculty on it, because they’re figuring out the financing Once they get the financing worked out, then faculty will have a look at the quality issues and those kinds of things Senator Kellogg stated that he tended to look at this as assessment and licensure For example, to become a registered engineer in the US, most states licensing boards stipulate the minimum degree you must have to sit for a PE exam is the BS in Engineering -not in Engineering Technology It is based on you having a certificate, a diploma from a recognized university that’s been accredited What happens if some lobby group all of a sudden changes the licensure rules? He questioned how Stanford and the CA university system were going to recoup these costs Senator Kellogg speculated that they’re all going to get together and form this huge conglomerate of universities and they’re going to say we will accept this program but we won’t accept this one, they’re not part of our group He asked Dr Bach if this has ever come up in any of the meetings he has been to Dr Bach commented that if you go to the ETSU visioning website and there is a link called EPIC It is basically looking at a futuristic assessment of what happens when Eudacity merges with the Khan Academy and when a conglomerate like Google buys these companies and becomes the educational engine He suggested we take a look at it Senator Kellogg asked in the meetings that Dr Bach has been at have people given the opinion that it’s a realistic model that might happen or are there other models on the table? Dr Bach replied that it is a particular view of a model for which the examples come from specific disciplines and which is focusing in graduate education There is no question about the escalating cost of higher education - states have made the decision that higher education is no longer an investment, it’s a cost Very recently, our lieutenant governor made the point that the largest discretionary fund that could be available under some doomsday scenario would be the higher education budget Education is being perceived as a private benefit as opposed to a public benefit What happens when you start to look at education in that way? You exactly what has happened in this state Initially we had 70% of the cost of education being bore by the state, 30% by the students In recent years that has flipped Now the student has the primary investment, the state very little in terms of the incremental change over time Now the students are saying is it really worth this, higher education institutions need to increase their tuition as much as they do? Senator Zucker stated that he actually polled his students as to how many would go for an online education 100% said they would rather take an online course than an in class course Their only concern was accreditation, cost was not a factor Dr Bach commented that he thinks the point Senator Bitter made about what is distinct about a university education today that can’t be replicated is the issue that we have to think about It doesn’t bother him that we have online students in dental hygiene all over the country because that particular program is available, or because we have programs in which students are have access to that they couldn’t otherwise What bothers Dr Bach is students who are sitting here in the dorms taking an online section of a course that they could be sitting in Gilbreath Hall taking He wonders why they are doing that Is it that the course is easier? Looking at the data relative to how the students seem to be doing in those courses that would not seem to be the answer Dr Bach moved on to share details ETSU establishing a location in downtown Kingsport ETSU will be offering the courses in the RCAT in downtown Kingsport and is leasing property The lease we anticipate will make this new facility available in summer and fall - not this spring In the fall of 2012 we had 514 students studying at Allendale We’re seeing the primary opportunity for growth downtown initially being in the areas of business, education, and nursing One piece of empirical evidence that there is a market is that students are currently taking those courses downtown through another institution at a significantly greater cost Second, the lack of an upper division public institution downtown was a primary factor in driving student debt because they are enrolling in those programs at private institutions The Kingsport downtown program will be run as a cost center That is to say the revenue for the student tuitions downtown will support the program itself We’re not going to be moving programs from Allendale downtown Allendale is going to focus on lower division offerings, upper division and graduate courses will be downtown We see the market for downtown as being completers at Allendale, completers at Northeast State, and a significant opportunity relative to the multi-state basis with the border guild We’re anticipating that we will have some 62 courses offered downtown in the fall We think we will have a duplicate enrollment of 676 students This is the estimate All of these courses that are offered downtown are offered to students who are pursuing an educational goal Senator Bitter inquired if the same enrollment requirements for graduate education apply up there as on campus? Dr Bach replied that this will be a total prerogative of the college They’re getting the revenue from tuition that’s being paid There is a good deal of flexibility that departments and colleges will have and in the conversations he has had, a good deal of very creative thoughts Dr Bach moved to the question asking him to share his thoughts regarding at least one community college in the TBR system that has petitioned to offer Baccalaureate degrees Hi said that Chattanooga State has proposed offering baccalaureate programs The particular programs they’re looking to offer are programs in Nuclear Engineering Technology, Chemical Engineering Technology, Mechatronics Engineering Technology, Tech Management, and Programming Radiological Sciences Technology The answer to the question, “what I think about it is I think it’s a bad idea” Dr Bach said he talked with Dr Noland, and Dr Noland has talked with the chancellor about it The administration is doing everything they can to keep that from being approved He does believe the chancellor recognizes the concerns Dr Bach asked if there were any other questions There were none President Byington thanked Dr Bach for visiting with the Senate Dr Bach thanked the Senate once more and left President Byington announced that there were three more agenda items First was approval of minutes Senator Taylor motioned to accept the minutes, Senator Foley second All approved with one abstention 7 President Byington moved to the second agenda item –three proposed handbook changes: the FAE citations, the selection and periodic review of administrators, and the division chart Dr Champouillon took the floor to introduce the proposed changes He began by stating that he would make a motion then there would be discussion He moved that the 3rd year review and all faculty annual evaluations during the probation period and the last years of FAE’s for promotion be required submissions for tenure, listed as such on all publications, and put on the tenure and promotion electronic site as required documentation Senator Taylor seconded the motion Dr Champouillon stated that he has been on the college promotion tenure committee years total and has chaired it twice The faculty evaluations are an integral part of the tenure and promotion dossier and they are missing from the online T&P system Why are they not on there? SAI’s are required This implies that your student evaluation is more important than your peer evaluations The handbook you’re supposed to be having peer review every semester These need to be there He continued that as chair of the college T&P committee, there have been times where someone has come up for T&P and a department has voted negatively and we had to go back and ask for the year review Often the 3rd year review is positive And occasionally the 3rd year review mandates areas of improvement If the candidate has addressed those issues or has ignored them then it becomes a rather simple vote Senator Schacht asked what was potentially left out of the motion If it were passed are there still other things that could be left out of a dossier? Dr Champouillon responded no, the requirements on the electronic site include a workload report from the chair, the vita, narrative statements from the candidate, SAI’s, peer reviews, but the only two things it does not say is year reviews and the annual faculty evaluations What it has currently is an upload button that says something like auxiliary materials or additional stuff Senator Schacht inquired what a faculty member does if the chair does not provide these documents Could you have a situation where a chair by not doing their job and not producing these documents? Dr Champouillon replied that the time to say something is the year you didn’t get it We all know you’re supposed to be getting an annual evaluation Senator Hayter commented that she thought chairs had to one So one should be able to go and ask them and they should have it on file Dr Champouillon responded that occasionally the committee has had candidates where the chair has not done anything The candidate should then just submit what they have and put in big bold letters “I submitted this, I got no evaluation” Personally if a chair does not evaluate a tenure track person during provisionary period, his opinion is that they have forfeited the right to vote Senator Schacht disclosed that in his department with a former chair, there was a situation where there was an unholy alliance basically between the chair and one particular faculty member The departmental secretary told him that a particular faculty member had not had to submit a faculty evaluation report in four years and the chair hadn’t bothered with it So then at the end of four years, if that person comes up for promotion, does the chair just manufacture a document to cover that period retrospectively or should this rule require that these things be submitted in a contemporaneous way? Dr Champouillon responded that it is up to the integrity of the people on the departmental committee and the college committee to say ‘you’ve not done this’ His attitude is that the departmental and college committees will make the right decision If someone above them wants to vote yes, that’s out of their hands Senator Schacht asked if it should be made clear that any such documents are not back-dated Dr Champouillon responded that we could say that about everything that goes in there Senator Kellogg asked we not all follow the same rules when it comes to P&T documentation Dr Champouillon replied no, that’s why it needs to be in the handbook The three year review is done by the tenured and senior faculty in your department It just makes sense that it should be a requirement The reason it is not a requirement is because it is not in the handbook as a requirement President Byington commented that he had no three year review nor did Senator Epps Senator Schacht asked what happens to a faculty member who is in the pipeline now, maybe they’re at their th year, and they not have a three year review They can’t go back and manufacture one Dr Champouillon stated that it happens all the time already The process ignores it Senator Kellogg stated that he thinks we need a new policy that is accountable Somebody has to stand up and say ‘hey, the chair did not my three year review’ Dr Champouillon agreed but commented that it is not why he is here today There are important things on your evaluations from the chair where they say you’re on progress or you’re not on progress Senator Kellogg replied that it’s the chair that tells the committee you need to perform this on this professor this year because it’s his/her third year review Dr Champouillon countered that it also says in the handbook that it is your responsibility It is also your responsibility to make sure that you have peer reviews each year You have to take personal responsibility also the first step is to get it where the three year review is a required submission If it hasn’t been done, then you note that your chair did not it Senator Schacht commented that he is focusing on what are the consequences if you don’t meet the requirement You’re saying you’re just off the hook Well that’s a toothless requirement Dr Champouillon stated that ETSU is a wonderful place where they have all these rules in which probably 2/3 no one follows You’re supposed to have a three year review It is a college requirement in the College of Arts and Sciences Senator Foley stated that if it is in the faculty handbook, then that helps us hold chairs accountable and also reinforces the need for professional development I In the instances where this doesn’t happen, we’re going to have to rely on the people that are in the college tenure committees to accept the notation saying the evaluation/review didn’t happen, if she were chair of the college tenure committee and somebody submitted that she would want to verify it with the chair Dr Champouillon said that there are two people in the Arts and Sciences right now who only submitted peer evaluations You’re supposed to have for each year The committee didn’t kick it back, they just noted as the prior steps did that there were not enough evaluations Senator Kellogg stated that there needs to be verbiage that says something to the effect that if the chair did not their job and have the annual evaluation that is the reason this is missing Then the chair has no The chair is supposed to pass on a recommendation for yay or That recommendation is based on what they’ve got in that annual evaluation If they never perform the annual evaluation, if there is no documentation to put in there, then they have no right to say anything Dr Champouillon responded that he brought it up to Bill Kirkwood and Dr Bach and they said there needs to be a spot in the handbook where it says that We have not worked out the verbiage He stated that he has to go and talk to the chairs council and talk to the dean’s council then it will go to academic council Senator Kellogg inquired how those words Dr Champouillon read to us carry any more weight than what is in the document right now It says already it’s a requirement, but they’re not doing it It should say if you choose not to this then you don’t have a say Dr Champouillon said as long as there is no spot on the tenure promotional electronic system that says faculty annual evaluations, or third year review, it is not necessarily going to be there There needs to be a spot for these documents 9 Senator Stone agreed He stated that when he chairs the College of Medicine Tenure and Promotion committee and he doesn’t see a document that’s supposed to be there he calls the dean’s office or whoever is responsible for the document to explain it That’s not exactly teeth, but they have to respond Senator Burgess said that last year when we went through the processes for electronic submission, they found that there were things that had not initially been thought of and asked programmers to add those categories Senator Schacht suggested an alternative to what Dr Champouillon was proposing We are not really talking about changing the criteria; we are talking about speaking to the issue of where those criteria are documented Maybe there should be a separate section in the handbook that specifically addresses sources of documentation Then just list these and anything else so that a candidate has in one place all the sources of documentation that can speak to the criteria Dr Champouillon replied that he doesn’t consider that an alternative thing, he considers that exactly what he is proposing Senator Buerkle commented that we’re talking about the third year review in his department is by faculty committee and that is also followed then by a chair’s report He doesn’t know if that’s consistent across university and either way he’d like it to be specified He asked for an amendment to specify whether that third year review is only the committee report and/or the chair’s report Dr Champouillon responded let us get these two things done, and then we can come back and make some additions He will some research and see what each college is doing President Byington asked if we are ready to take a vote on this Senator Schacht had one more question Do we have to pass this in order to get the electronic online form changed? Dr Champouillon replied no, this is a part of shared governance This is a proposal coming out of here and this is a proposal designed to protect everyone in here Senator Blowers said that all we’re asking is the format of the electronic system be changed so that there are specific placeholders for information that is already called for in the handbook The other issues we’re talking about need to be dealt with at a later point Dr Champouillon said the third year review, and all FAE’s during a probation period, or the previous years of FAE’s before your promotion should be required submissions for your tenure promotion file Senator Foley said that she applied this year for tenure promotion and had to have the evaluations scanned and put them in the supplementary data She chose the order so the college committee would have to dig through that to find them She said that last year the same was true for SAI’s This year they did make a tab for SAI’s so it was real clear when she uploaded her materials where the SAI’s go It needs to be clear where the FAE’s go President Byington put the motion to the vote with 25 in favor, opposed, and abstention Dr Champouillon then raised the issue of administrative search committees He stated that what happens now is that there are people on a chair search committee of which only are in the department The th person is a student, and the other are picked by the dean Those people have no idea what your department’s needs are Dr Champouillon moved that we change the make-up of the administrative search committee from external / internal, to internal / external [Departmental members] He added that he personally doesn’t think a student should be on that committee, because a student does not have the requisite experience, maturity, and credentials; even if that student is a Masters student The third thing suggested is that the tenured members from the department are elected If there are less than tenured faculty members, then you choose from non-tenured faculty in the department If there are less than full time faculty of any designation within the department, then 10 the additional requisite committee members will be chosen by the department faculty from outside This way, the department is selecting the majority of the search committee The dean will then appoint additional members of the search committee consisting of non-departmental tenured faculty Currently the policy is that the search committee and full time departmental faculty will be involved in developing the job description Also it doesn’t presently say your chair candidate has an interview with your faculty One of the proposed changes is that the dean will consult with the full-time departmental faculty concerning the preferred candidate and determine if these are acceptable to the majority Basically, the bottom line is we’re going from external and internal to internal and external, no student It makes sure your departmental faculty knows what is going on and is part of the process Senator Arnall added that in some cases the dean will tell people in the department they cannot participate in the interviews of a candidate He would like to see that struck out and have everyone allowed to be part of the selection Dr Champouillon persisted that the motion is that we accept this He added that it doesn’t mean it’s going through to the handbook, because now it would have to go through everyone plus the janitor Senator Schacht made the motion and Senator Arnall seconded Senator Schacht stated that he is in favor of concentrating the search committee within the department faculty He continued that he would like to speak in favor of retaining student representation though for the following reasons First of all, even if students are not qualified to choose a chair, we’re an educational institution and part of how students learn how to this stuff is by participating in these activities We have SGA representation on the president’s council, we have student regents, student members of the UT board of trustees to say we can have students of those levels but not on a departmental chair committee doesn’t seem quite balanced Senator Laughlin countered that search committees are relatively small committees so having students on them is a little different Senator Davis commented that he didn’t think there has ever been a student on any of the chair search committees that he was aware of Dr Champouillon said that we have a rule that half the campus is not following Right now it says a student will be there Senator Sellers stated that personally, he would rather have the policy stay the way it is because often times departments can be incestuous and it’s good to have other people look at a department as well He restated that he was against it, especially with small departments Senator Burgess commented that he understood what Eric said, but respectfully disagreed with him Dr Champouillon added that it is not just about bringing in a person to be a chair but that the candidate must also teach something It starts with a job description where that person should be contributing something needed to the department Senator Shafer commented that she didn’t like the fact that student representation was struck Senator Schacht proposed an amendment to the stated motion that departments have the option but not the requirement to appoint students Senator Shafer seconded President Byington asked if there was any discussion on the amendment Senator Buerkle clarified that if we vote for the amendment, it doesn’t mean we’re approving the total motion, it just means we’re willing to have this motion altered President Byington added that we are voting exclusively now on whether or not to alter the motion to include student representation The motion to amend the proposal to allow student representation passed with 29 yes, opposed, and abstentions 11 President Byington asked if the senate was ready to vote on the amended motion It has now been amended to include student representation The vote was cast to change the policy of the chair search committee and passed as amended with 28 in favor, opposed, and abstention Senator Zucker expressed that he would like more lead time on important issues in order to discuss these items with his constituencies President Byington said that he tries to get the agenda and any attachments out a week in advance and that he emails his department with major action items we are discussing He then continued that as a point of question, we still have items left on the agenda, and asked if we would to differ that to our first meeting of the spring semester There was general agreement Senator Epps motioned to adjourn ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5.00 p.m Please notify Senator Melissa Shafer (shaferm@etsu.edu or 9-5837), Faculty Senate Secretary, 2012-2013, of any changes or corrections to the minutes Web Page is maintained by Senator Doug Burgess (burgess@etsu.edu or x96691)