1. The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 in the President's Conference Room in Green Hall. Senator Honhart presided until Chairperson Eaton arrived at 4:00 p.m. Vice Chairperson Larsen participated using Skype.
2. Following discussion, the Minutes from FSEC Meeting #11, October 25, 2011 were approved. The Minutes from Meeting #13, November 9, 2011 were approved pending review of relevant sections by Provost DeHayes.
It was agreed to wait until Chairperson Eaton's arrival to discuss the announcements. The committee moved to item 4.
a. The Executive Committee reviewed the Agenda for Faculty Senate Meeting #3, November 17, 2011 in preparation for the meeting the following afternoon.
b. The Executive Committee agreed that results of the previous spring's survey of faculty about the IDEA should be the primary topic for their meeting with Professor Kinnie and Dean Ciccomascolo.
c. Following discussion, it was agreed that Mondays from 11-12:30 would be the best compromise for spring semester FSEC meetings as long as the Executive Committee adhered to the shorter time frame.
5. The Executive Committee discussed the following matters of continuing concern:
a. Drop Period Legislation: The FSEC reviewed issues related to Senate Bill #10-11--23 and agreed the outstanding issues should be resolved as soon as possible. They noted that the deadline for fall 2012 had passed and time was running out for fall 2013. They asked that Chairperson Eaton and Vice Chairperson Larsen meet with the student leadership to bring the matter to completion.
b. Culture of Community: The Executive Committee discussed the issue of ASFCCE faculty representation on the Senate and agreed to recommend on a temporary basis that Kingston Senators with links to the Providence Campus try to ensure concerns of that campus are considered in discussions.
With regard to a community research-scholarship day, it was agreed to wait for suggestions from the Senate at the forum.
c. Administrator Evaluation: Senator Barbour confirmed that the membership of the Administrator Evaluation Committee was complete. She reported that Provost DeHayes had appointed Professor Anne Hume and Dean Jordan appointed David Rowley, joining Professors Cho, Quilliam, and Ward.
The Executive Committee decided to ask at the Senate meeting for volunteers for the ad hoc committee to reconsider the Administrator Evaluation process.
d. Task Force on Institutional Effectiveness: The FSEC agreed that the term "institutional effectiveness" should be clarified before the Task Force is established.
e. URI Foundation Award for Service: The FSEC reviewed and agreed that Chairperson Eaton should sign the draft letter to Ms. Kaull, Chair of the URI Foundation's Excellence Committee, requesting the Foundation include a service award as part of their Excellence Award program.
The Executive Committee agreed to discuss announcements/correspondence before the representatives of the Teaching Effectiveness arrive at 4:30 p.m.
a. Experiential Learning Update: Chairperson Eaton announced that she had met with Ms. Washor earlier in the week. She said that she and Ms. Washor, who will coordinate experiential learning programs, discussed plans to improve communication among various departments and programs involved in experiential learning
b. Senate vacancy: Chairperson Eaton announced that she had declared a Senate seat in Arts and Sciences vacant. The FSEC agreed that Ms. Grubman should suggest to Dean Brownell that the college consider a Senator who might represent the Feinstein campus as well as Arts and Sciences.
c. AAUP Governance Conference: Chairperson Eaton and Senators Barbour and Rice reported on the workshops they had attended. They said the various meetings were helpful and informative and agreed they should let the AAUP Executive Committee know how much they appreciated the opportunity to attend.
Professor Kinnie and Dean Ciccomascolo arrived at 4:30 pm to discuss the results of the spring semester survey of faculty about the IDEA survey.
6. Copies of summaries of the survey results were distributed. The survey, which was about faculty members' confidence in interpreting the IDEA survey results, produced a low number of responses. There was a consensus that the returns on the survey were too limited to make any judgments.
Concerns were raised as to department chairpersons' and deans' understanding of the IDEA survey results and the importance of ensuring that they understand how to interpret the IDEA results if they intended to use them in any evaluation.
It was agreed, that for the survey to be useful to faculty and administrators, more training was needed in interpreting the results.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Sheila Black Grubman
EVALUATION REPORT PROVOST DEHAYES posted 9/18/14
OPEN ACCESS POLICY (5/24/13)