MINUTES

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting 32 – March 11, 2011

1. The meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m. on Friday, March 11, 2011 in the President’s Conference Room in Green Hall, Chairperson Eaton presiding. All members were present except Vice Chairperson Larsen and Senator Krieger.

2. The Minutes from Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting #30 February 25, 2011 were approved pending review by Provost DeHayes of portions on his meeting with the FSEC. The Minutes from Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting #31 March 4, 2011 were approved pending revisions.

3. Announcements/Correspondence:

a. Chairperson Eaton reminded members of the FSEC that they had been invited to attend the Council of Deans’ Budget Hearings on March 23. It was noted that not everyone would be able to attend because it was in the middle of spring break. Chairperson Eaton agreed to inform Provost DeHayes as to who would be able to attend and to thank him for the invitation in response to their request in November.

It was noted that the FSEC had made the request originally to add further transparency to the budget process. The Executive Committee discussed what their role would be at the hearings. It was agreed to discuss this further when they meet with Provost DeHayes on March 18.

b. Ms. Grubman reported that she had received from Professor Rosen the names of faculty volunteers for the Administrator Evaluation Committee for Vice Provost Katz. The Executive Committee reviewed the list of volunteers and selected their appointees to the AEC.

4. The Executive Committee discussed the following matters of continuing concern:

a. Recommendations for recognizing and supporting faculty service: The Executive Committee discussed their proposal for a Faculty Senate Outstanding University Service Award and the positive response they had received when they met with the AAUP the previous afternoon. It was noted that the AAUP had suggested three service awards: 1) service to the university, 2) service to the community, and 3) service to professional organizations. Following discussion it was agreed to present one award for service to the University, which they believed was best suited to the Senate’s role and responsibilities.

The Executive Committee also agreed to encourage Chairs of Faculty Senate Committees to write letters in support of faculty members’ service on their committees when junior faculty come up for promotion and tenure.

It was agreed that they would share their idea about a new service award and letters of acknowledgment from senate committees with Provost DeHayes at their next meeting.

b. Drop Period Legislation: Chairperson Eaton reported that during lunch with the Provost and AAUP, Senators Eaton and Larsen discussed other possible modifications to the drop period legislation.  One idea was to allow the first 2 weeks of the semester as the add/drop period and permit three additional weeks during which the student would not be allowed to drop the class without seeing the class instructor or an advisor.  After having a discussion and receiving advise from the teacher or advisor, the student could drop the course but would get a W on their transcript next to the course name.  They agreed that the idea of seeing a teacher or advisor is a good one, but they could see many problems that could arise.  For instance, students might say they tried to see their teacher or advisor and claim that they couldn't.  This idea might be best developed along with the new advising guidelines that are soon to be developed.      It was noted that the concerted effort underway to improve advising would continue, eliminating the main reason students cite for allowing a longer drop period

They agreed that the recommendation that they already suggested to the Academic Standards and Calendar Committee was a better option at this time.  It is to have a 6-week period when a student is free to drop the course. If the student drops during that time, the course would not appear on their transcript. After that, a student who wants to drop a course would have to apply for a late drop from their academic dean.  If this permission were grated, the student would receive a W on their transcript next to the course name.

5. Meetings:

a. The Executive Committee briefly discussed their meeting the previous afternoon with the AAUP and agreed it had been useful to discuss faculty issues from slightly different perspectives.

b. Chairperson Eaton reported that Vice Provost Libutti had agreed to report to the Senate on retention efforts at the April meeting but said that he hoped that a faculty member of the Retention Task Force would be willing to join him.

c. The Executive Committee agreed to the following topics for their March 18 meeting with Provost De Hayes:

1) The establishment of a Faculty Senate Outstanding University Service Award and other ways to acknowledge faculty for their service to the University.

2) The Council of Deans’ Budget Hearings on March 23

3) Joint Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Advising

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheila Black Grubman