Faculty Assembly
THE FACULTY ASSEMBLY
THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA:
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TUESDAY FEBRUARY 27, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 with twenty members of the Faculty Assembly present.
The first item of business was to approve the minutes from the November and December Faculty Assembly meetings.
The next order of business was a report from the Provost to the Faculty Assembly.
The Provost began by congratulating three members of the Assembly (Dr. Will Hausman, Dr. Steve Kaattari, Dr. Dave Lutzer) who recently received Chaired Professorships.
The Provost then provided a report on the status of the current budget crisis. She began by stating that the legislature adjourned without agreement on the proposed amendments to the Governor's budget. This necessitated that the state revert to the budget that was passed a year ago. However the revenues are not adequate to fund the budget that was approved last year. In order to balance the budget the Governor has taken the following actions:
(1) Suspension of all capital projects that are not under contract
The Provost reported that this may even affect Swem because of subsidiary contracts
for furniture and shelves, however this remains unclear. This also suspends
projects that would have been paid for from reserve funds such as classroom
renovations.
(2) A hiring freeze (although the Secretary of Education is able to grant exemptions)
(3) A freeze on all "discretionary" spending
The Provost reported that the College has asked for clarification on the meaning
of what constitutes "discretionary" spending.
The Provost also reported that the College has been directed to prepare a plan for a 15% budget cut by noon on Friday (March 2nd).
Dave Lutzer suggested that it would be prudent to postpone the April 15th contract date if the budget has not yet been resolved; the Provost agreed that this would be possible.
The Provost closed by stating that perhaps during a "special session" the Senate and the House would reach a compromise.
The Provost then addressed the Faculty Assembly on proposed changes in the Faculty Handbook, specifically those related to Post Tenure Review.
She stated that in 1996 the Post Tenure Review policy was put in place in a hasty fashion because of pressure from Richmond. The "old" policy did not cover what would happen if a faculty member did not submit an acceptable performance plan; there were no consequences. In addition, the policy differs from everything else we do with regard to retention, tenure, and promotion in that it did not address the role of the Department Chair, the Dean, or the Provost.
The Provost stated that the revised Post Tenure Review Policy was discussed a number of times with the Personnel Policy Committee. Given that the PPC voted in favor of the revised document eight to two, the revised version was forwarded to the Faculty Assembly. The Provost alerted Assembly members that if the revised policy is to be in place for the next academic year, it will be necessary to have the Faculty Assembly vote on the policy at the March meeting.
The Provost then opened the floor to questions and comments. The following points were raised.
- There was a question regarding the apparent lack of a timeline for when in the semester the review should take place. The Provost responded that she gives the Deans a timeline each year.
- Some faculty also voiced concern that the revised policy stipulates that all of the documentation is forwarded to the Provost and the President, even in the case of a favorable review. The Provost stated that this was a change between the new and existing policy and that the purpose was to assure that the quality of teaching was maintained.
- There was also concern about the stated goal (in Section 3) to improve "the quality of the faculty," implying that the level of performance must go up from the standard used at tenure. The Provost responded that this language is used elsewhere in the Faculty Handbook and that the goal is to ensure that every faculty member be doing some part of their job well. She reiterated that the critical aspect of a faculty member's performance is teaching.
The discussion of the Post Tenure Review policy was then tabled with the suggestion that it be taken up in "New Business."
This concluded the report from the Provost. The next item of business on the agenda was the series of reports from the standing committees.
Bill Stewart, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, reported that his committee met with Susan Bosworth and Lorne Kuffel regarding the assessment reporting requirements. They also met with a group of undergraduate students who were attempting to construct a course evaluation website. He reported that although they were not very far along in this attempt, his committee provided suggestions.
Katherine Kulick, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, first reported on the status of CARP. She stated that a subcommittee had been created and that after two months a draft proposal was provided to the full Faculty Affairs Committee and then forwarded to the Provost, Dick Williamson, and the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office returned the document with a preliminary response to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The response of the Attorney General's Office raised several questions and concerns. The FAC was asked to consider these issues. The Faculty Affairs Committee met last week and is currently in the process of formulating a response to the Office of the Attorney General.
Katherine Kulick then reported that there was another subcommittee to review the Intellectual Property Policy. The goal is to improve on how the process for patent and licensing of new technology is expedited. The Committee plans to finish reviewing the document in March and then forward it to the Faculty Affairs Committee.
Alan Fuchs, Chair of the Committee on Planning and Resources, reported that the committee had one meeting and was currently working on clarifying the committee structure. For example, a subcommittee of COPAR was established with the Development Office. He also reported that the Faculty Compensation Board will be responsible for work related to retirement plans and the state's contributions to these plans. Colleen Kennedy, Chair of the Liaison Committee, reported that Carl Friedrich presented an excellent talk at the recent BOV meeting. She also reported that President Sullivan argued very forcefully for raising faculty salaries.
Since there was no "Old Business," the next item on the agenda was "New Business."
The first topic was the "living wage campaign." George Greenia circulated a resolution calling for the Faculty Assembly to urge the Office of the Budget to institute a sliding scale for parking fees whereby those who earned less than $8 per hour would pay no parking fees. Following some discussion, it was unanimously decided that the issue be referred to the task force set up by President Sullivan to consider issues related to the "living wage campaign."
The next topic under "New Business" was a brief report from the Provost. She informed the Faculty Assembly that a committee was established to review the new guidelines for accreditation. The charge of the committee was to ensure that we had the appropriate procedures in place for meeting the new guidelines.
Bill O'Connell then reported that the Executive Committee met with the Provost and discussed five issues: (1) the new Web design, (2) the hiring freeze, (3) the state contribution to optional retirement plans, (3) W&M 2010, and (5) the faculty research budget. The Provost added that her goal was to maintain the increased level of the faculty research budget and to have a larger number of faculty receive funding.
Discussion then returned to the Post Tenure Review policy. Colleen Kennedy reviewed the history of the Post Tenure Review policy and explained that the policy has been discussed by a number of committees in the past years.
There was general concern over the phrase in the policy stating that one of the goal's of the policy was the improvement of the faculty. Several faculty also raised concerns over the fact that a positive evaluation could be theoretically overturned by the Provost. The Provost explained that the "improvement of the faculty" phrase is there because it is in the Faculty Handbook in other places. The Provost stated that we need to make a distinction between tenure and post tenure review. In tenure, continuous improvement of the faculty is a reasonable goal. That is not the specific intent with the Post Tenure Review policy. The intent is to maintain consistency in different departments and schools.
Katherine Kulick then introduced John McGlennon who served as the Chair of the Procedural Review Committee. He presented information about the issues and concerns raised by certain faculty members. His report covered a history of the policy at W&M as well the Post Tenure Review policies used by other institutions. The Provost responded that she disagreed with many aspects of the report and that many items were factually incorrect.
The issue was referred to the Faculty Affairs Committee for further consideration. A proposed amendment to the Faculty Handbook regarding the definition of service was also referred to the Faculty Affairs Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40pm.
Margaret Saha
Secretary
