Skip to main content
Scenes from Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting

Minutes #7

September 13, 2013

 

1. The meeting was called to order at 9:10AM on September 13, 2013 in the Dorothy Vocino Conference Room in the URI Library, Chairperson Byrd presiding. Senators Brady, Cerbo, Davis, Nassersharif and Rice were present.

2. The minutes of FSEC meetings #6, Sept. 6, 2013 were approved as amended.

3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE/REPORTS

a. The FSEC will be meeting with President Dooley on September 16, 2013.

 

b. At the request of the Executive Committee, the President agreed to address the faculty during the Sept. 19th General Faculty-Graduate Faculty Meeting that precedes the Faculty Senate Meeting.

 

c. Chairperson Byrd contacted an emeritus faculty member regarding the vacant University Ombudsman position. The faculty member is considering the position.

 

4. ONGOING BUSINESS


a. The draft agendas for the first Senate meeting and the General Faculty-Graduate Faculty Meeting, scheduled for Sept. 19th, were reviewed. Discussion ensued about amending the administrator evaluation (AE) pilot and creating a permanent process that includes data, a report, and a summary to allow an assessment by the FSEC of the tool, process, and results.

 

The use of the Forum in Senate meetings was discussed. It was agreed to continue to include a Forum session when appropriate.

 

b. Consideration of administrator evaluation (AE) continued. The merging of the Faculty Senate results (reports from the evaluation committees) with the Provost's survey and subsequent follow-up with colleges was discussed. There is a need for clearer understanding of how the two sets of results are combined. The evaluation process of the President was discussed. Because President Dooley is amenable to the Board of Education receiving the evaluation results of the Faculty Senate review, the FSEC discussed changing either manual language pertaining to evaluation (10.90.14) or the channels of authority (2.10.10).

 

c. The proposed manual language establishing a focused program review was discussed. It was agreed that editorial remarks from the deans should be reviewed with the Provost.

 

d. Ms. Neff informed the FSEC that the Chair of the UCGE committee had requested a meeting to discuss the proposed revisions to the Gen Ed program. After some discussion, Ms. Neff was asked to invite UCGE Chairperson Maier-Speredelozzi to the Sept. 27 FSEC meeting.

Provost DeHayes and Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Beauvais joined the meeting at 11AM.

5. A discussion took place regarding the evaluation of academic deans. The Provost said that, with regard to the Senate process, he finds the use of the electronic survey instrument to be effective and that he would find survey results clustered by topic to be useful. The Provost was asked if, when he meets with colleges in the follow-up, he discusses both the results of the Senate process as well as the Provost's process. The Provost responded that he shares a broad overview of the full review.

The FSEC addressed the proposed changes to the second year of the AE pilot process, that is, including some form of a report back to the FSEC of the Senate process after the evaluation is complete. Discussion ensued regarding the intent of a report to the FSEC and its possible form and content. The archiving of evaluation results was discussed.

6. The state of the Gen Ed revisions was discussed. The Provost said that UCGE Chairperson Maier-Speredelozzi had made a presentation to the Council of Deans on Sept. 11. The proposed program that included modifications from earlier versions was generally well received at that time. The Provost said that he considers the current proposed Gen Ed structure to be clear and substantively different (improved) from its structure of two years ago. He also noted that the proposed program is far less complex than the existing one. He said that he understands that there are multiple points of contention with the program among some faculty, but that grounds for opposition to the proposed revisions should stem only from philosophical differences about what students should know, be able to do, and stand for as preparation for life in the 21st century rather than from individual or departmental self-interest. The Provost also said that the current URI Gen Ed program is out of date, does not serve the students well, and creates obstacles for some students that diminishes progress toward graduation.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:45PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Neff