Skip to main content
Scenes from Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting

Minutes #26

February 25, 2013


1. Immediately following a meeting with Dr. David Mead-Fox, from the Korn/Ferry International Executive search firm, the regular meeting was called to order at 11:08 a.m. on Monday, February 25, 2013 in the Provost's Conference Room, Green Hall, Chairperson Larsen presiding. All members were present.

2. The Minutes from Meeting #25, February 18, 20013 were approved.

3. The Executive Committee discussed Faculty Senate Meeting #6, February 21, 2013.

a. Members expressed disappointment that Ms. Thompson had been unable to give her report because of laryngitis, but agreed it was gracious of her to attend the meeting anyway. They decided to ask her to give her presentation in April or May.

b. The FSEC discussed Professor Andrée Rathemacher's presentation on Open Access and agreed she had been very informative. They agreed to ask Professor Rathemacher to consult Mr. Saccoccio as to whether the Harvard Policy on Open Access was consistent with Rhode Island law. They also considered whether it would be appropriate to bring a recommendation about Open Access to the Faculty Senate in March.

4. Announcements/Correspondence/Reports

a. Ms. Grubman confirmed that the FSEC had received a revised Agenda for the Provost's budget meeting with the Deans on March 6. The members were reminded that they should let Ms. Williams know if they planned to be there during lunch.

b. The Executive Committee considered a question about whether a full program review could be conducted at a time different than originally scheduled. Senator Barbour, who chairs the Academic Program Review Committee said that although the 6-year schedule had been created, departments could have that flexibility if needed. APR provides for assessment, reflection and strategic planning at the department level.

The discussion continued regarding focused reviews of individual degree programs. The Executive Committee agreed that there was nothing prohibiting an administrator from conducting such a review, but that there was nothing in the University Manual explaining how such a review should be conducted. Vice Chairperson Byrd noted that when the program review process was changed in 2006 to the current academic program review, some aspects of the old "program quality review" had been eliminated. It was agreed to review some of the deleted sections to determine what the FSEC might recommend to clarify the procedure for exceptional situations.

c. Senator Nassersharif announced that he had not heard from the Provost about the Provost's appointees to the four administrator evaluation committees. He said that he had been contacted by all of the Deans about their own appointees.

Senator Nassersharif reported that Dean Maslyn had asked if his appointee could be a member of the library staff given the large number of staff members in the Library compared to the number of faculty positions.

Following discussion, the Executive Committee agreed that the dean's appointee should be a faculty member as described in the rules governing administrator Evaluation.

5. The Executive Committee agreed to the following topics for their meeting with President Dooley at 1:00 p.m. on February 28:

a. The status of the new Board of Education

b. Administration and Management Review Committee

c. Searches for the Vice Presidents

Chairperson Larsen reminded the FSEC that he would be unable to attend the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheila Black Grubman



Sheila Black Grubman

Faculty Outstanding Award

2015 Notice and Criteria



University Libraries LibGuides