Summary Minutes of the March 9, 2010 Faculty Senate Meeting
Chair Mark Lockhart reported to the Senate concerning:
President Carol Garrison announced the following:
President Garrison responded to questions from Senators addressing:
1. Time required for completion and the need for such detailed information and legality of requiring such information. The goal is to minimize time and effort required of faculty to complete the process.
2. What is impact of this process on UAB? This will be determined as the process is completed and monitored in the coming year.
3. What are the future plans for repeating this verification process? No decision has been made at this time.
4. What is the best way for faculty to be able to talk with Alesia Jones or someone in the benefits office? Contact HR and ask for Ms. Jones.
5. Why are letters being sent that indicate that persons have not completed the forms and submitted when such has occurred? Ms. Jones will follow up with Chapman Kelly on this question
6. What is the cost of the verification process for the university? Ms. Jones was not able to quote the costs.
7. How did Chapman Kelly get the names of employee depends? A. Jones: UAB sent them.
8. If one of my listed dependents DOB makes her ineligible why is she on the list of dependents? A. Jones: DOB isn’t everything (that’s relevant)
9. If I informed the insurance company that one of my dependents was no longer eligible why is her name on the list? A. Jones: (I don’t know)
10. Did you know that the insurance company collects student status verification twice a year? A. Jones: We’ve ask them not to do it (this cycle)
11. Form page 3 “why” section. ‘UAB is sensitive to rising costs and feels verification necessary’ How much does this verification cost? A. Jones: (I don’t know)
12. ‘As laws become more stringent…’ What laws? A. Jones: We are not governed by those laws.
13. Form p3 “who is Chapman Kelly” Were there completive bids for this work? A. Jones: This was done through system office they made the choice.
14. Does anyone, or their family member, receiving money from the system also receive money from Chapman Kelly? A. Jones: Not to my knowledge.
15. Has it occurred to anyone that faculty who contracted for health coverage may turn litigious if coverage is revoked and there is no proof they got the Chapman Kelly letter? A. Jones: (no comment)
16. Do Chapman Kelly employees have state agent immunity? A. Jones: Not sure.
President Garrison noted that the goal is to assure the university community that non-deserving or ineligible persons not be a major contributor of the healthcare costs to the university. The need is to control healthcare costs and assure that eligible persons have the services needed.
Ms Jones indicated that faculty with questions and concerns should contact the HR office.
Dr. Richard Marchase, Vice President for Research and Economic Development presented information on the following focus areas:
Information outlining key points for each of the above focus areas is available at the Senate web page http://www.uab.edu/fsenate/home.html
See the Faculty Senate presentations drop down link
Also posted at the Senate link is the document – UAB Contract Language Guidelines for Industry Sponsors of Clinical Trail Agreements.
Faculty with questions about the information presented in the slides available at the link should contact Dr. Marchase or contact Dr. Lockhart so that follow up can occur.
Topics discussed during open forum: No topics were identified by Senators at this meeting.
Curriculum and Research Committee Report
The RFP and applications are available at the links above. For examples of types of
Faculty Affairs Committee Report
Chair Sue Kim reported the following:
Sue J. Kim, Chair
Faculty Affairs Committee
MOTION: In order to close the feedback loop for IDEA administrator evaluations, the following steps will be added onto the current process: The faculty will receive a summary of the results and plan for improvement in the form of written or verbal feedback within 120 days of distribution of the results to the administrator and their supervisor. When available, these results will be used as part of the comprehensive annual review of the administrator by their supervisor. On an ongoing annual basis, the Office of the Provost and Deans will work with the faculty to monitor and ensure the completion of this feedback process to faculty. The specific procedures for oversight of the feedback process will be determined through negotiations between the Faculty Senate and the university administration.
RATIONALE: Whereas the concrete impact of past IDEA administrator evaluations has been unclear, this motion adds steps to the process to ensure that the results of the surveys will play a substantive role in administrator evaluation and development. A specific time frame and process will be set for administrators to report back to their faculty the results of the survey as well as any future plans that may arise from the feedback generated by the survey. Furthermore, this process ensures that the IDEA results will be included in annual administrator evaluations, just as IDEA teaching evaluations form a portion of faculty annual evaluations. In other words, this motion means the institutional adoption of the IDEA administrator survey results as one criterion (among several) for administrator evaluations at all levels.
Discussion of New Motion:
Chair Kim noted that this new motion assures that feedback to constituents will be required, monitored and that IDEA repots will be one component of an evaluated administrator’s annual evaluation by his/her supervisor when available.
This motion addresses these points: feedback is to be made available to constituents, timeline for feedback, inclusion of a plan for improvement, and that the results be a component of the annual evaluation process for administrators evaluated.
The motion second reading will occur at the April Senate meeting. When approved the motion contents will be added to the operational guidelines for the Faculty Affairs Committee’s periodic conduct of administrator evaluations.
Faculty Policies and Procedures Committee Report
Chair Lockhart read the following FPPC recommendation as the second reading to Senate:
The FPPC recommends that:
1. An Advisory Working Group be formed that examines the vision, scope, organization, and tentative working plan of the University P & P library. This advisory group also would (1) develop policies for maintaining, developing, and reviewing university policies; (2) develop consistent forms to use in developing and managing, reviewing, and changing university policies; (3) provide editorial changes to “Guidelines for UAB-wide Policies Referred for Faculty Review—Summary”, linking it to the P & P library; (4) addition of relevant definitions to Guidelines for UAB-wide Policies Referred for Faculty Review—Summary (e.g., guidelines and non-academic programs); and (5) address responsibilities for deletion of outdated links information to minimize confusion with out of date links when doing a UAB search out of the P & P library [or in library]. We recommend working members from the following positions/offices:
a. Planning & Analysis;
b. Human Resources;
e. Associate Provost of Faculty Affairs;
f. Associate Provost of Administration & Finance;
g. IT; and
h. University Compliance Officer.
Senator Julio Rivera made a motion to approve the FPPC recommendation. The motion was approved by majority vote.
Finance Committee Report
Chair Jeanne Hutchinson reported the following:
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
SUBJECT: FACIT -- Status
Finance Committee Meeting 02/22/10
Health benefits survey
DATE: February 24, 2010
FACIT & IEC
At its March 9, 2010, meeting the Undergraduate Programs Council (UPC) endorsed the proposal to have the Instructional Environment Committee (IEC) of the UPC serve as the new Faculty Advisory Council to Instructional Technology (FACIT) to review technologies recommended for campus-wide adoption in the classroom and online learning environments. At the moment there are no IT-related items for the committee to evaluate.
The IEC has a meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 25. The items on the agenda include:
1. Updates on classroom renovations (guest: Sheila Chaffin)
plans of the Counseling and
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING 02/22/10 & Health Care Survey
I updated the committee on what was happening on the fringe benefits front, namely the formation of a new committee by Provost Capilouto to be headed by Mr. Richard Margison and to consider over the next two months employee leave benefits. Pat Greenup and I are on this committee from the Senate and FPPC. It contains some fringe benefit members and some at-large members. It includes two representatives from the Commission on the Status of Women.
members of the Finance Committee had an opportunity to attend the Faculty
Development program on budgeting for departmental chairs on January
28. The three of us were there (Pat Bucy,
The committee felt it would be helpful to have a representative from the provost’s office go over the timeline and budget process to give us a better overview of when decisions are made and what individuals and committees are submitting recommendations. We will pursue this. At the January 28 presentation, the presenter and Dr. Peel did express a willingness to do something additional if needed.
Senate 2008 health care survey was discussed.
I had meeting with Dr. Linda Reed, last week, and she still thought the
analysis could be handled this year by an individual in the
I haven’t had a chance to rework these questions, but I will do so and share a revised copy with the FSEC, the Finance Committee, and HR.
Governance and Operations Committee Report – No report.
University-wide Committees with Senate representatives’ reports.
Undergraduate Programs Council Report to UAB Faculty Senate
March 9, 2010
The UPC met on February 10th on the 3rd floor in HUC at 8:00 am.
1. Articulation and Curriculum Committee : Joe March PhD, chair of the ACC moved to
recommend the new undergraduate curriculum for the Health Education Major –
Human Services Concentration from the Department of Human Studies in the School
of Education. Dr. Maxie Kohler, PhD had previously presented the proposal to the
A&C Committee for review and comments.
Dr. Kohler stated the purpose of the new undergraduate concentration with the Health
Education major is to expand the offerings at UAB in order to increase opportunities
for professional studies in human services. In addition, there are a number of students
from General Studies that are undeclared majors and this option would provide an
excellent alternative for students who desire an applied, undergraduate program and
Action: The UPC voted to approve the new major – Health Education Major –
Human Services Concentration.
2. Academic Policies and Procedures Committee: Becky Trigg, PhD, chair of the APPC
presented the added bullet item to the UAB Attendance and Excused Absence Policy.
The University regards certain absences as excused and in those
instances requires that instructors provide an accommodations for
the student who misses assignments, etc, Examples include the following…..
The new bullet states "Absences due to religious observances provided that
students give faculty notice prior to the drop/add deadline of the term."
The purpose of the revisions to the current policy is to add religious observances as
excused absences provided adequate notice is given by students. The benefits and
disadvantages of adding religious observances were discussed by the members,
including the number of ethnic festivals and holidays that are identified on the Equity
and Diversity's web site. After clarifications to the policy were offered, Dr. Trigg
moved to recommend the policy to the UPC.
Action: The UPC voted to approve the new addition to the current UAB
3. Instructional Environment Committee: Jeanne Hutchison, PhD, chair of the
Instructional Environment Committee presented information regarding the
development of a new Faculty Advisory Council to Instructional Technology
(FACIT). The purpose of the FACIT is to provide a channel for collaboration,
feedback and guidance between the larger faculty community and IT related to
technologies recommended for campus-wide adoption in the online and classroom
learning environments. The IEC will essentially be the Faculty Advisory Council to
Instructional Technology, but may call on faculty with additional expertise.
Secretary Greenup reported that the ballots will be distributed starting March 8 and all faculty members are encouraged to participate in the voting processes for senators and for FPPC representatives. The election results will be available for the April Senate meeting.
a. Faculty Awards Convocation – March 9, 2010; 3:00 pm – Sirote Theatre ASC
b. President’s Reception for Senate/FPPC – April 22, 2010; 5:30 – 7:00pm Woodward House
c. April 6 – Dependent Verification reports
d. April 30 – Economic Interest reports
Next FPPC Meeting –
f. Next Executive Committee Meeting – March 31, 2010
g. Next Executive Committee Meeting with President and Provost – April 6, 2010
Next Senate Meeting –
UAB Faculty Senate – http://www.uab.edu/fsenate/home.html
Secretary Pat Greenup submits this draft summary of the minutes for distribution via eReporter with a more complete record to appear on the Senate page after approval of expanded minutes at the April Senate meeting. The minutes of the Senate and the Faculty Policies and Procedures Committee are posted on the Senate web page.