Skip to main content
Scenes from Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting


Meeting #10

October 18, 2005

1. The meeting was called to order at 1:03 p.m. on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 in the third floor conference room in Green Hall, Chairperson Rice presiding. All members were present with the exception of Senate Coordinator Ms. Black Grubman.

2. The Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting #9, October 11, 2005 were reviewed and additional editing suggestions were made. Minutes from Meeting #8 were not ready for approval.

3. Announcements/Correspondence:

A letter from Chairperson Rice to concerned engineering faculty regarding approval of their request for an evaluation of Dean Nassersharif was discussed.

4. Review of Agenda for Faculty Senate Meeting #2, October 20, 2005.

a. The Executive Committee reviewed the Agenda for Faculty Senate Meeting #2, October 20, 2005. It was noted that the President would have to leave early and had asked that his report be moved up in the agenda. He has approved all but one of the actions on the items from the Students Rights and Responsibilities Committee. Students are expected to be present and two have asked for permission to speak.

b. The Executive Committee discussed postings to TheForum-L regarding the Mission Statement.

5. The Provost arrived at 1:45. The following matters were discussed:

a. Mission Statement: It was noted that the Mission Statement is on the October 20 agenda for endorsement by the Faculty Senate. There was mention of the lively discussion on TheForum-L and the possibility of equally lively discussion at Senate meeting on Thursday.

b. On-Line Learning Committee: The Executive Committee reviewed the draft charge to the proposed committee. They conveyed the importance that the Teaching Effectiveness Committee (TEC) be involved with this issue. The FSEC proposed that a member, most likely Chair, of the TEC as well as the CAC sit on this proposed committee. Discussion ensued with possibilities for this On-Line Learning Committee becoming broad based, maybe a subcommittee of the TEC.

c. Assessment: Concern was raised that since the general education program does not belong to departments, the Faculty Senate, through the UCGE Committee, is the responsible body. SLIACC will remain advisory for the present; at some future time the committee might be absorbed by or become a subcommittee of a Faculty Senate committee. Provost Swan indicated that the Office of Assessment would serve as facilitator and clearinghouse for assessment. During discussion, the Executive Committee recommended that other functions might be incorporated into the Office. Discussion followed concerning possible combinations of functions such as Accreditation and Institutional Research.

d. Searches: Provost Swan reported that a third candidate for Vice Provost for Academic Affairs would be on campus on Wednesday, October 26. She said that the search for Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Research has not begun because the position is still being reviewed for any changes or modifications before a search is conducted. Provost Swan reported that the Vice Provost for Information Services search committee is working and expecting to bring in candidates in November.* The Provost said that the Dean of Libraries search committee has been selected and that she expects to attend their first meeting soon. She also announced that the search committee for the Dean of the College of Business Administration has been named and includes two members from an external advisory group.

e. Administrator Evaluation Process: It was agreed to review the process in light of the request concerning administrator evaluation It was noted that the current system does not seem to be functioning efficiently and has become backlogged due to timing of appointments. Discussion ensued regarding possibility of implementing a more standardized evaluation tool that might be tailored to each college. The Provost stated that she would ask other university provosts how their various institutions handle administrator evaluation.

f. Concern was raised regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and student heath notes. Do we have unenforceable clauses in the University Manual? The Provost and FSEC will further explore the issue.

6. Matters of Continuing Concern:

a. Administrative bottlenecks: The Executive Committee agreed that it was necessary to keep looking at these concerns. They agreed that it might be time to ask Ms. Morrissey for an update at a future JSPC meeting.

b. AIIM: Chairperson Rice said that the University expected to schedule AIIM administration for every two years. The Executive Committee expressed is a concern that institutional financial, enrollment, and other departmental data should be directly inserted into the AIIM survey instrument.

Other items will be continued at next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Ramsay

* Subsequent to the meeting the interviews for the Vice Provost candidates were delayed.



Sheila Black Grubman

Faculty Outstanding Award

2015 Notice and Criteria



University Libraries LibGuides