Minutes for January 25, 2006 FSEC Meeting

Time: Noon – 1:30 p.m.

Senate Office

 

 

A.     Attending: Chair Pete Anderson, Chair-elect Joe March, Past-chair Ted Benditt, Mark Lockhart, Warren Martin, Jeff Engler, Tim Kraft, Madelyn Coar, Pat Greenup, Stephanie Belcher

 

B.     FSEC Minutes – December 21, 2005 FSEC meeting –No feedback received. Minutes approved and ready for posting on Senate page.

 

C.     January 10, 2006 Faculty Senate – DRAFT Expanded Minutes –No feedback received; document ready for distribution to Senators prior to February 14 Senate meeting.

 

D.     DRAFT Agenda for February Senate Meeting

Faculty Senate Meeting Agenda

February 14, 2006 7:30 - 9:30 A. M.

Great Hall AB

  1. Call to Order
  2. Recognition of Visitors – Non-Members of the Senate -Please Sign Attendance Roster
  3. Approval of Minutes – January 10, 2006 Faculty Senate Meeting
  4. Chair Report – Chair Pete Anderson
  5. President’s Report – President Carol Garrison
  6. Senate Standing Committees

a.       Curriculum & Research – Senator Jeff Engler-IDEA Student Rating pilot study

b.      Governance & Operations - Senator Jennifer Long

c.       Finance – Senator Warren Martin

d.      Faculty Policies and Procedures – Past-Chair Ted Benditt

(1)   Family Friendly Policies recommendations

(2)   Copyright Policy Draft – recommendations integrated into Senate report to Provost

    1. Faculty Affairs – Senator Mark Lockhart – Periodic Career Review

      Proposal

 

  1. New Business

a.       Library committee report – update – Jeff Engler

b.      Faculty Senate Representatives to University-wide Committees

·        Debra Laken – Athletic Advisory Committee/Academic Standards Subcommittee

·        Madelyn Coar – Diversity Advisory Council

·        Warren Martin/Linda Reed – Fringe Benefits Committee

·        Seine Chiang - UAB Commission on Status of Women

·        Warren Martin and Alison Chapman-Campus Planning Committee

·        Tommy Singelton -Police Advisory council

·        Jeanne Hutchison - Committee on Academic Advising

  1. Open Forum

 

  1. Announcements

a.       Next Executive Meeting with President and Provost – March 7, 2006

b.      Next Senate Meeting – March 14, 2006 – Penthouse

c.       Next FPPC Meeting – February 17, 2006 – Penthouse CR1

d.      Senate Elections – Nominations for Senators and FPPC Due February 24 2006 to Senate office sbelcher@uab.edu

e.       Higher Education Day – March 2, 2006

 

E.     DRAFT Agenda – FSEC Meeting with President Garrison/Provost Capilouto – February 7, 2006

 

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting

With President Garrison and Provost Capilouto

Tuesday February 7, 2006

9:00 – 10:30 a.m.

AB1070

AGENDA

 

  1. Math restructuring proposal
  2. Faculty evaluation audit process
  3. Plans for UAB policy development and review process.  Role of HR in faculty related policies
  4. Copyright policy draft (FYI)
  5. Student rating pilot study IDEA – Update
  6. Status of administrative review of policy concerning maintenance of high ethical standards in research and other scholarly activities.
  7. Status of handbook template use by academic units – 2003 senate request

 

F.      FSEC – Topics Discussed – Action Items Included

 

1.      FPPC request – Family Friendly policies recommendations

                

                                                                                                             Faculty Senate

 

 

January 21, 2006

 

 

MEMORANDUM

 

To: Peter Anderson, Chair of the Faculty

      Ted Benditt, Past-Chair of the Faculty and FPPC Senate Representative

 

From:  Pat Greenup, Chair of the FPPC

 

Re: Family Friendly Related Policies Recommendations from FPPC to the Senate

 

 

The following outlines the recommendations submitted by the FPPC to the Senate with the request that after review and approval by the Senate that the recommendations be forwarded to the Provost with the request that the Fringe Benefits Committee and the appropriate units of UAB Human Resources consider the recommendations and actions needed to address concerns identified by the FPPC.

 

Toward the goal of enhancing recruitment and retention of faculty, and to ensure equity in implementation of UAB’s policies and procedures, we recommend:

 

1.                That the Faculty Senate be represented and involved in any development, review and/or modification of any policies and procedures that would impact faculty as employees of UAB.  Given the array and complexity of possible issues involved, we recommend that the Chair of the Faculty Senate and the Senate Executive Committee identify the appropriate faculty representative, who, along with the Associate Provost for Faculty Development and Faculty Affairs, will participate in the above deliberations.

 

2.                That there be consistent and standardized recording and documentation of

            faculty vacation and sick time; these records should be updated monthly, with

           annual summaries reviewed by faculty for accuracy, and maintained both

           electronically and hard copy within the departmental or library units;

 

3.        In order to assure consistent execution and documentation of UAB policies and

           procedures for all faculty, that there are training sessions for all new faculty,

           and annual update and review for those persons responsible for

           implementation of these policies and procedures; and further, that all training,

           update and review activities be documented.

 

  1.      That Human Resources (HR) review the UAB sick leave, sick leave donation,

            bereavement and FMLA and Nepotism policies with the charge to examine all

            language and address the current inconsistencies as to terminology and

            interpretation so that presentation of information will assure that persons in

            the HR are consistently answering questions with standard interpretation of

            the policies. It is requested that HR examine the feasibility of the development

            of a glossary with terms and clear definitions that are related to policies

            intended  to support family friendly perspectives.  We specifically recommend

            that all policies and procedures consistently define family as “anyone who

            resides in the same household” (as in Policy 303 – Sick Leave) and/or

            “immediate family” (as in the FMLA).

 

     5.         That HR and the Office of the Provost address clarification of the

                 sequencing and interrelationship of all policies and procedures (see those

                 named in #4 above) e.g. the order of use of accrued paid time; or the taking of

                 simultaneous leaves; or the implementation of the Sick Leave Donation Policy.

 

     6.        That there be clarification (renaming) and increased awareness of the scope of

                the You and UAB Handbook, specifically that this document applies to all

                UAB employees, including faculty.

 

 

The FPPC requests that the Senate review and approve these recommendations so that these HR related recommendations will be considered by HR as ongoing review processes are occurring for these policies.

 

Please contact me if you have questions.

 

 

ACTION ITEM: THIS FPPC REQUEST CONCERNING FAMILY FRIENDLY POLICIES WILL BE PRESENTED TO SENATE ON FEBRUARY 14, 2006.

 

 

2.      Copyright Policy review – FPPC request

 

 

                                                                                                             Faculty Senate

 

 

 

January 21, 2006

 

 

MEMORANDUM

 

To: Peter Anderson, Chair of the Faculty

      Ted Benditt, Past-Chair of the Faculty and Senate Representative to FPPC

 

From: Pat Greenup, Chair of the FPPC

 

Re:  UAB Copyright Policy

 

 

This report and request for consideration of questions and concerns from the FPPC pertains to the UAB Copyright Policy that the Senate forwarded to the FPPC on January 9, 2006.

 

The FPPC reviewed the document UAB Copyright Policy Draft dated December 15, 2005 on January 20, 2006 and identified the following questions and concerns:

 

  1. Purpose

 

Paragraph line three – change the word “fee” to free to read free atmosphere.

 

  1. Information and Education

 

    1. First bullet item – following the word Act include (TEACH)
    2. First bullet item – question related to how will the information be provided to the University community
    3. First bullet item – question will there be a process for documentation that persons have complied with the “exposure or awareness to the information?”
    4. Carolyn Walden (member of FPPC) indicated that she is a member of a Copyright Education Committee Chaired by Scott Plutchak but there is no reference to this in the DRAFT policy. It would be helpful to know what this process will be and how documentation will occur.

 

  1. Ownership

 

    1. Paragraph A – line 3 – it is recommended that following the word “assigned” that the following be added (Refer to Paragraph B) because it is not clear with the word students and the word assigned in the same sentence.
    2. Paragraph B – following the word thesis please add “/dissertations”
    3. Paragraph D – the word substantial is open ended and we realize the difficulty of be more specific; however, there is concern that the interpretation of routine secretarial services might not be addressed to clearly identify the “amount of employee time” associated with the language in this paragraph.
    4. Paragraph E – Does this policy replace the Distance Learning Copyright Rules? If so then this needs to be added to the paragraph. This section is very limited and may be open to future concerns by faculty but there is a need to address the currently existing Rules.

A question was identified about web sites as used by students related to activities affiliated with UAB requirements.

    1. Paragraph G – the language and use of “shop rights” does not seem to address concerns about faculty ability to use materials in textbooks for instructional purposes

 

  1. Disclosure

 

Why is the UAB Research Foundation the only entity identified when the majority of the faculty are concerned with educational or instructional materials and not products generated as the result of research or grant monies?

 

The FPPC recommends that a statement be added

 

“For questions regarding when disclosure is needed related to educational and/or instructional materials that the Provost’s office be contacted.”

 

The FPPC respectfully requests that the Senate consider these questions and concerns as the Senate replies to the December 15, 2005 request from the Provost.

 

If questions, please contact me.

 

ACTION ITEM: CHAIR ANDERSON WILL INTEGRATE THE CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY FPPC FOR THE DRAFT COPYRIGHT POLICY AND INTEGRATE THEM INTO THE SENATE REPLY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROVOST AND FOR PRESENTATION TO THE SENATE. This Senate report will also integrate input from the Curriculum& Research Committee meeting and recommendations generation on January 30, 2006.

 

 

3.      Library Committee update

 

ACTION ITEM:    Jeff Engler will report updates on library committee activities to the Senate on February 14, 2006.

 

 

4.    FAC – Mark Lockhart

·        Periodic career review process proposal

 

                         Periodic Career Developmental Review - Concept Proposal Draft

Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

 

January 17, 2006

 

 

Background and Goals

 

The University of Alabama at Birmingham currently has a comprehensive plan for detailed evaluation of tenure-track faculty, but less specification has been previously available regarding the development of tenured faculty. The Faculty Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate has been given a charge by the UAB President to evaluate the potential for periodic career developmental review.  Although this concept has been considered in previous administrations at UAB and rejected by the full faculty senate, added interest in the concept on a national and state level has prompted reconsideration of the possibilities of a systematic periodic review of all faculty at our institution.

 

The objective of this Periodic Career Developmental Review plan is to promote development of tenured faculty. The addition of a peer component to existing annual evaluations should help identify areas for improvement, give constructive feedback, and provide recommendations for support to allow such improvement in faculty members who have shown areas of need in the Chair administered annual evaluation process.

 

A suggested framework for the periodic career evaluations would be a selective peer component structured upon existing annual evaluation system of faculty. The annual review of faculty should consider all areas of academic productivity, including teaching, administrative duties, and other services, and in appropriate departments, clinical productivity. Complete uniformity of the evaluation process is not suggested since there is variability in the function and expectations of faculty members within individual departments, but an assurance that there are adequate evaluations across departments is important to ensure fairness and equity among the faculty.  Any effort within the university to develop a set of universal criteria for evaluation does not take into account the great diversity in local disciplinary cultures, and there is a need to recognize the cultural diversity that exists within academia. Each discipline has highly specialized norms that are specific to its own notions of scholarship, and a Universal Report Card to assess faculty performance would run the risk of smoothing over these important differences. 

 

The Senate FAC promotes a “peer” evaluation system that recognizes interdisciplinary variation in norms of academic scholarship. Therefore, each department will be responsible for creating a brief description of the expectations of its tenured faculty. The expectations must be approved by the departmental faculty and administration prior to implementation of the periodic career developmental review process. After approval of the expectations of tenured faculty, the department shall create a periodic career review committee, and the committee will elect its committee chair. It should be understood that the departmental description of expectations of tenured faculty must remain consistent with general University policies and goals.

 

It is important to emphasize that a periodic career developmental review incorporates this “peer” component of review so that the process is not an administrative evaluation of a faculty member.  The notion of peer career review without an emphasis on development has the potential of being transformed for consideration of renewal issues and therefore could be used to erode the system of tenure. Emphasis must be placed on the developmental aspects of the peer review, and the process will not be a re-evaluation of tenure. Further, this periodic review cannot be used for consideration of termination of employment. The standard for grievance procedures and for dismissal within the UAB system will remain unchanged, and not affected by the process.  

 

Individual units must spend the proper time and energy to develop their annual review process.  Effective departmental annual reviews of faculty, with each unit establishing a systematic review process with written annual evaluations for their faculty, is very effective, and operates as a useful mechanism by which departments can assist faculty in enhancing productivity and development.

 

Review Process

 

Peer  review of all tenured faculty on an annual basis is considered too resource intensive for successful operational implementation.  Furthermore, such a process would be redundant, as all faculty are already being reviewed for annual salary raises, promotion, sabbaticals, appointments to graduate faculties, centers, and interdisciplinary programs, as well as when they are elected or appointed to school and university committees.  By structuring a peer component of review upon existing annual administrative reviews, this should allow for efficient use of resources, and yet provide a mechanism for evaluation and provision of assistance to the individuals who are most likely to benefit from additional career developmental support from peers.

 

As to not create a large administrative burden due to the process, a selective or triggered peer component added to the existing annual review process would be implemented only for individuals who have perceived need of additional career support based upon their administrative annual reviews. It is recommended that two consecutive documented unsatisfactory administrative evaluations, as determined by the Chair, be used to trigger the peer review component.  For individuals who have consecutive unsatisfactory administrative reviews, the faculty member will be notified in writing by the Chair within a two-week period that the peer review process is being initiated, and a peer committee will be convened within one month after the notification date. 

 

The composition of any peer review committee is important. Faculty within the same department as the individual being reviewed are likely to be the best candidates for providing useful, supportive peer review since they have expertise in the area, and they have an understanding of the expectations within the individual department. The committee would be comprised of 2 to 5 tenured peers selected by the Chair from within the department of the individual, if available.  The Chair will not be a member of the committee. At least half of the committee members will have rank of Professor within the department, if possible based on departmental faculty distribution and number. At least half of the members will be selected from an existing departmental peer review committee by the chair of the departmental peer review committee to assure consistency of the process. Also, a faculty member may request that members of another department within the academic unit be included in the peer committee.

 

The goal of the peer review committee would be to provide assistance to the faculty member for three years to help promote improved performance.  In collaboration with the committee, the faculty member will create a 3-year individual development plan, to be approved by the peer review committee, the faculty member, and the Chair within four months of notification of the faculty member that the peer review process has been initiated. The plan will address specific measures and may include, but will not be limited to, evaluations by a departmental administrator, peer evaluations, and teaching evaluations by students. It is understood that adequate resources will be provided by the department, school, and university as a whole to the individual faculty member to facilitate improvement in any areas of deficient performance. Each year during the individual development plan, the peer committee will reevaluate the individual’s progress, and will provide written recommendations to the individual and the Chair.  The Chair will likewise provide an annual written assessment of the progress of the faculty member to the individual and the peer review committee. At the conclusion of the individual development plan period, the committee will provide a written summary of the progress of the faculty member, to include a statement of whether the goals have been met. If the faculty member has completed the plan successfully then the periodic review process will be ended. If there are two subsequent unsatisfactory administrative annual evaluations, the triggered review can be reinitiated. A written summary of successful completion or unsuccessful result will be provided to the Chair, Dean, and Chair of the Faculty Senate. If the plan is unsuccessfully followed by the faculty member, the committee will recommend in writing any needed corrective action to the Chair and the Dean.

 

Participation by departmental faculty as members of a peer review committee should be considered a service to the department and institution.  Although there are time resources of other faculty members that would be used in this process, the potential to assist a fellow faculty member should be considered a worthy goal.

 

 

Quality Assurance

 

It should be understood that there are expectations that the Chairs will be adequately prepared to perform the evaluation process of their faculty.  Periodic training for Chairs regarding their requirements in the process will be provided by central administration as needed. Review of the evaluation process of each department should be periodically reassessed for quality by the Dean of the respective department at a regular interval no greater than every five years. The review should also specifically ensure that no bias, discrimination, or unfair practices are allowed within the process.

 

 

Other Considerations

 

Due to the different expectations of faculty in different departments, the evaluation process must allow enough flexibility to account for the differences in daily work among different faculty. The importance of the academic freedom within departments, which has allowed the growth of UAB to its current standing, must be acknowledged.

 

It should be noted that within this document the title “departmental chair” applies to an appropriate administrator who performs responsibilities similar to a departmental chair in the case that an academic unit does not have a person specified as departmental chair.

 

ACTION ITEM: Mark Lockhart will follow up with the FAC members and prepare a revised periodic career development proposal document to be distributed prior to the February 14, Senate meeting.

The following questions, comments were identified and require further consideration:

 

  1. Timeline for Senate processing the proposal – February discussion; March first reading; April second reading and voting with completion of recommendations to go to Provost
  2. Background section – does the comprehensive plan refer to Section 2.0 of the Faculty Handbook; the President did NOT charge the Senate to do anything but rather encourage the faculty to take the lead on development of a proposal that addresses post tenure review; it is not relevant to include historical statement about previous Senate (prior to total campus structure implemented in 1995)
  3. Paragraph 4 – clarification of role of department chair
  4. How will small departments identify peers for process?
  5. The current annual review process and function needs to be formalized
  6. The current Section 2.6.3.7 needs to be identified in reference to the annual review process that is current policy
  7. What counts as an unacceptable evaluation? Does this mean 2 times in a row?
  8. Is it the chair alone who decides?
  9. Need to be sure that the proposal actions are kept separate from termination procedures or punitive actions.
  10. Paragraph three – need to clarify use of diversity, cultural diversity and disciplinary cultures
  11. Quality assurance – does this build on the proposed faculty evaluation audit process?

 

 

NOTE: The FSEC did not discuss any of the follow up required for the IDEA process.

This topic will be placed on the agenda for the February FSEC meeting. The Senate has received the IDEA bill for the chair evaluations. The cost was $5347.00

 

The FAC will be preparing a proposal that outlines the IDEA processes for the next three years and this will be presented to the Senate as an FYI after FSEC approval. Topics to be included in the report to the FSEC include:

 

·        IDEA – summary of the 2005 chair process with identification of problems and actions needed to avoid next year

·        Proposal for Senate FSEC approval and presentation to Senate to include the following

1.      IDEA process – results of survey of FAC members; who in Provost office will be evaluated

2.      IDEA process – should immediate supervisors receive the summary of the comments

3.      IDEA need process to assure continuity – needs discussion; this is not the responsibility alone of the Office Associate; the role of the FAC needs to be more clearly defined how will this be addressed in the future; the role of the Secretary of the Faculty needs to be defined

                                 

5.      FPPC Report – Faculty Handbook recommendations for revisions to Sections and Policies other than Section 2.0

 

Chair Anderson reported that the FPPC has forwarded the recommendations for all sections of the Faculty Handbook other than the Section 2.0.

 

ACTION ITEM: CHAIR ANDERSON WILL PRESENT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT HANDBOOK REVISIONS FROM THE FPPS TO THE FSEC AND DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR THE INFORMATION TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE SENATE.

 

THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE THE CURRENT AND THE PROPOSED TRACKING DOCUMENTS FOR THE INTRODUCTION, SECTION 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WITH CONFLICTS OF COMMITMENT POLICY REVISIONS.

 

 

6.      FPPC Chair – follow up – meeting with Cheryl Locke

 

Chair of the FPPC Pat Greenup met with Cheryl Locke and Kris Findlay on January 18, 2006 to discuss organizational operations of the Human Resource Management review of policies and procedures and to determine the location of the previous ISS Policy Development activities in the Provost office. This discussion addressed concerns by FPPC about process and what are the roles of HR related to faculty concerns. The issues include the need for renaming You and UAB to include faculty, the need to create one faculty handbook with links to all policies that faculty must be aware of and to identify the process for faculty input into the review of the You and UAB as long as faculty are expected to comply with policies addressed in this handbook.

There will be future meetings and the FPPC will be working with HR – Cheryl Locke and Kris Findlay to attempt to identify the current practices for review of UAB wide policies and procedures.

 

                       ACTION ITEM: The FPPC Chair Greenup will keep the FSEC informed

                       of all activities related to discussions with Cheryl Locke and Kris Findlay.

 

 

G.    Topics Not Discussed – Action Item

 

 

1.      IDEA Chair process and report on future administrator evaluations by Senate

 

Action Item: Refer to previous section of these minutes for FAC information. This report describing the fall IDEA activities and the planned IDEA activities for fall 2006 should be presented to the Senate at the May meeting.

 

2.      Warren Martin proposal – Senate service awards

 

Action Item: Topic of Senate service awards proposal will be placed on agenda for February FSEC meeting.

 

3.      Elections update on nominations received. This was not discussed. Nominations for Chair elect and secretary are due February 3, 2006. The nominations for Senators and FPPC are due February 24, 2006.

 

ACTION ITEM: Senate Office Associate will send reminder for election nominations and due dates to Senators on Monday January 30, 2006.

                 

4.      Questions for Rose Scripa for March Senate meeting – Faculty

       Development and Enrichment Program

 

                        Action Item: The topic of Faculty Development and Enrichment

                        Program will require discussion at the February FSEC

                        meeting.

 

                       The membership of the Enrichment Committee with Senate Chair

                        representative to committee is attached.

 

 

 

 

Faculty Development/Faculty Enrichment Committee

 

 

 

 

 

Development Areas

Co-Chairs

 

Phone

Email

Learning

Research

Leadership

Service

David Corliss

Director, Special Assessment Projects

4-6770

dcorliss@uab.edu

 

 

 

 

Alberta McCaleb

School of Nursing

4-6535

mccaleba@uab.edu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Members

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pam Bounelis

Joint Health Sciences Departments

4-9693

bounelis@uab.edu

 

X

 

 

Patricia Higginbottom

Library, Lister Hill

4-2230

phiggin@uab.edu

 

 

 

 

Delores Carlito

Library, Mervyn Sterne

4-8494

delo@uab.edu

 

 

 

 

Marilyn Kurata

Office of Core Curriculum Enhancement/Undergraduate Programs

4-0513

mkurata@uab.edu

X

 

X

 

Karen Shader

Office of Information Technology

5-6552

kkshader@uab.edu

X

 

 

 

Scott Arnold

School of Arts and Humanities

4-8920

sarnold@uab.edu

X

X

 

 

Sarah Culver

School of Business

4-8879

sculver@uab.edu

 

 

X

 

Madelyn Coar

School of Dentistry

4-1141

mcoar@uab.edu

X

X

X

 

TBN

School of Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregg Janowski

School of Engineering

4-8524

janowski@uab.edu

X

 

X

 

Claire Peel

School of Health Related Professions

5-8034

peelc@uab.edu

 

 

X

X

Jonathan Waugh

School of Health Related Professions

4-7638

waughj@uab.edu

X

 

 

X

Kathe Nelson

School of Medicine

4-8744

knelson@uab.edu

X

X

X

X

Charles Watkins

School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics

4-8137

watkins@uab.edu

X

X

 

 

Rod Fullard

School of Optometry

4-6746

rfullard@uab.edu

X

X

 

 

Jack Barnette

School of Public Health

4-4993

barnette@uab.edu

 

X

 

 

Wendy Gunther-Canada

School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

4-9680

wgunther@uab.edu

 

X

X

 

Peter Anderson

Joint Health Sciences Departments

4-2414

pga@uab.edu

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ex-Officio Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rose Scripa

Associate Provost for Faculty Development and Faculty Affairs

4-0513

rscripa@uab.edu

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.  Status of Ad Hoc  - Quality Assurance – Faculty Evaluation Process

 

      Topic not discussed.

 

      Action Item: The Senate/FSEC is waiting for report from Provost and Cheryl

      Locke on the status of the quality assurance process for faculty evaluation

      Auditing. This topic will be placed on the agenda for the February FSEC

      meeting.

 

6. Senate Liaisons – Implementation Process Update – Have Liaisons been

      asked to do anything?

 

     Topic not discussed.

 

     Action Item: Concerning communications by Senate Liaisons with their faculty

     constituents we are waiting for update from Jennifer Long and further

     information from President Garrison concerning access to email distribution lists

     for faculty in some units.

 

 

7. Senate Budget

 

     ACTION ITEM: A budget report will be presented to FSEC at February

     meeting. A report should be presented monthly to the FSEC and the Office

    Associate will prepare this report for the FSEC.

 

 

 

H.    Summary of Action Items – January 25, 2006 FSEC Meeting

 

  1. ACTION ITEM: THIS FPPC REQUEST CONCERNING FAMILY FRIENDLY POLICIES WILL BE PRESENTED TO SENATE ON FEBRUARY 14, 2006.

 

  1. ACTION ITEM: CHAIR ANDERSON WILL INTEGRATE THE CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY FPPC FOR THE DRAFT COPYRIGHT POLICY AND INTEGRATE THEM INTO THE SENATE REPLY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROVOST AND FOR PRESENTATION TO THE SENATE. This Senate report will also integrate input from the Curriculum& Research Committee meeting and recommendations generation on January 30, 2006.

 

  1. ACTION ITEM:    Jeff Engler will report updates on library committee activities to the Senate on February 14, 2006.

 

  1. ACTION ITEM: Mark Lockhart will follow up with the FAC members and prepare a revised periodic career development proposal document to be distributed prior to the February 14, Senate meeting.

 

 

  1. ACTION ITEM: CHAIR ANDERSON WILL PRESENT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT HANDBOOK REVISIONS FROM THE FPPS TO THE FSEC AND DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR THE INFORMATION TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE SENATE.

 

THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE THE CURRENT AND THE PROPOSED TRACKING DOCUMENTS FOR THE INTRODUCTION, SECTION 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WITH CONFLICTS OF COMMITMENT POLICY REVISIONS.

 

    6.    ACTION ITEM: The FPPC Chair Greenup will keep the FSEC informed

           of all activities related to discussions with Cheryl Locke and Kris Findlay..

 

   7.     Action Item: Refer to previous section of these minutes for FAC information.

     This report describing the fall IDEA activities and the planned IDEA   

     activities for fall 2006 should be presented to the Senate at the May meeting.

 

   8.     Action Item: Topic of Senate service awards proposal will be placed on

           agenda for February FSEC meeting.

 

 9.       ACTION ITEM: Senate Office Associate will send reminder for election  

    nominations and due dates to Senators on Monday January 30, 2006.

 

 

10.     Action Item: The topic of Faculty Development and Enrichment

          Program will require discussion at the February FSEC meeting.

 

 

11.  Action Item: The Senate/FSEC is waiting for report from Provost and Cheryl

       Locke on the status of the quality assurance process for faculty evaluation

       Auditing. This topic will be placed on the agenda for the February FSEC

       meeting.

 

12.  Action Item: Concerning communications by Senate Liaisons with their faculty

       constituents we are waiting for update from Jennifer Long and further

       information from President Garrison concerning access to email distribution   

       lists for faculty in some units.

 

13. ACTION ITEM: A budget report will be presented to FSEC at February

     meeting. A report should be presented monthly to the FSEC and the Office

    Associate will prepare this report for the FSEC.

 

 

I.       Summary of Action Items – December 21, 2006 FSEC Meeting

 

1.      Action Item – FSEC members are to review the Copyright Policy DRAFT document and give feedback to Chair Anderson.

Status: January 28 – in progress.

 

2.      Action Item – Chair Anderson will respond to Provost Capilouto with names of nominees for service on Library Committee and submit listing of groups as discussed by FSEC.

      COMPLETED

 

3.      Action Item - Chair –Elect Joe March will submit nominees to Provost for service on the Portal Committee by January 10, 2006.

       COMPLETED

 

 

4.      Action Item – Chair of FAC Mark Lockhart will prepare periodic career review proposal for the January 25, 2006 FSEC meeting.

STATUS: Report submitted at FSEC meeting on January 25, 2006.

 

5.      Action Item – Chair Anderson will submit questions related to faculty development program to Dr. Rose Scripa in preparation for the February Senate meeting.

PENDING – THIS NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED AT FEBRUARY FSEC MEETING.

 

J.      Summary of Pending Action Items from September and November 2005 FSEC meetings.

 

·        Action Items – November 30, 2005 FSEC Meeting

 

 

ACTION ITEM: Chair Anderson will forward information to the FSEC following the FSEC meeting to determine the steps necessary to distribute information to the Senators and faculty about the revised and posted Handbook Section 2.  ACTION PENDING INFORMATION FROM PROVOST

 

ACTION ITEM: This topic (quality assurance of faculty evaluation process) was placed on the agenda for the December 6 meeting with President and Provost. COMPLETED – Topic will appear for future meetings because the task force has not yet met.

 

                        ACTION ITEM: Jennifer Long will communicate information about the

                        Oracle representatives to the Senate Liaisons. PENDING

 

                        ACTION ITEM: Chair Jennifer Long will contact Liaisons about their

                        participation with the elections process and encourage that they support

                        the identification of nominees for all vacancies in the Senate and the

                        FPPC.   PENDING

                     

                         ACTION ITEM: The topic of faculty participation will be presented to

                         Deans at APC by Chair Anderson to encourage their support for faculty

                         involvement in the Senate and FPPC activities.

 

                         PENDING

 

 

ACTION ITEM: Chair of FPPC Pat Greenup will communicate with Cheryl Locke to determine the status of planning and revision process for HR policies pertaining to faculty. PENDING with ongoing discussions see minutes of the January FSEC meeting.

 

 

ACTION ITEM: Chair Anderson will request President and Provost permit Rose Scripa attendance at the FSEC meetings with President and Provost when the topics are related to faculty development and faculty affairs that are of concern to the Senate. This is to facilitate communication of specific information about topics of concern to the faculty. This decision is based on attendance for Dr. Scripa at specific meetings and not every monthly meeting of the FSEC with President and Provost. PENDING ACTION WHEN APPROPRIATE

 

·        Action Items from September 2005 FSEC Meeting

 

               ACTION ITEM: Chair Anderson will follow up with Karen Platcke

                    and Dr. Dale and request that the Senate be kept informed of requests

                    from the GLBT group. 

 

                    Completed for purposes of these FSEC minutes as no communications have

                    been received from Karen Platchke.

 

K.    Handouts for the FSEC meeting – January 25, 2006

 

1.      Agenda – FSEC meeting January 25, 2006

2.      Draft Minutes of the December 21, 2005 FSEC meeting

3.      DRAFT Expanded minutes of January 10, 2006 Senate meeting

4.      Senate services awards proposal

5.      FPPC Copyright Policy recommendations

6.      FPPC Family Friendly Policies Recommendations

7.      Periodic Career Developmental Review Proposal

 

  L. Announcements

a.       FSEC meeting with President and Provost – February 7, 2006

b.      Next FSEC meeting – February 22, 2006 noon – 1:30 pm

c.       Elections process – nominees for chair-elect, secretary due February 3 and senator and FPPC February 24, 2006

d.      Higher Education Day – March 2, 2006

 

M. Adjournment

 

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

 

 

 

    These minutes were prepared by Secretary Greenup on January 28, 2006.