>> A-Z INDEX
Committee Members: Martha McCaughey (Chair); Tim Hueslman; Eric Marland; Rick McGarry (fall only); and Susan Staub (spring only).
This year the Academic Policies Committee (APC) tackled several major issues:
The feasibility of College-level Review, Tenure, and Promotion Committees. The committee researched and reviewed ASU Peer Institutions’ policies on RTP and presented pros and cons to switching to a system of College-level RTP committees. Discussions were held in reaction to a specific motion on the establishment of College-level RTP committees, but this motion was tabled or referred back to committee.
The APC reviewed the Council of Chairs’ proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook having to do with the nature of faculty appointment and reappointment. The APC recommended the proposed changes and the Faculty Senate supported this with two amendments.
The document by the North Carolina State Faculty Assembly which recommended the adoption of a set of minimum standards of shared governance at NC universities was reviewed and approved by APC, which suggested minor changes. The Faculty Senate supported this.
The APC partnered with the Welfare and Morale Committee to craft a proposal for recognizing Appalachian Scholars, those who have served the University for a long period of time and who have shown excellence in research/creative activity, teaching, and service. This was discussed at a Senate meeting, and a motion will be presented to Senate in April.
Academic Policies Committee (McCAUGHEY, Hueslman, McGarry/Staub,
Marland)
Motion FS04-05-/12-04 RPT policies
WHEREAS many departmental Review, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT) policies are unnecessarily vague and difficult to access or understand by RPT candidates as well as all other parties who must follow the policies to access RPT candidates,
Be it resolved that College-level RPT policy committees be formed that will review and address departmental policies on RPT decision.
Composition:
The exact composition of these committees will be decided by each College or School, but will undertake measures to ensure departmental representation. The committee will be chaired by the Dean, Associate Dean, or Assistant Dean. The chair may or may not be a voting member of the committee. No one may be a member of the committee in a year that they will be either an RPT
candidate or on leave from campus. No one may serve more than two consecutive years. All members of the committee must have previously served two years on a DPC.
Actions:
This committee will work to make sure that policies are clear, concise, and lie within the University standards. Each RPT policy document, upon approval, will be posted on the public portion of the department's website.
The approved policy will be the official policy which will guide RPT decisions by the all parties at the university.
This committee will not address individual RPT cases. If a committee is formed to address individual cases, membership on the two committees will be mutually exclusive.
Notes:
The exact detail on how the committee will work will be left to the colleges, but will likely ask for a departmental representative (not on the committee) to present the policy or policy change to the committee and remain for the ensuing discussion.
Faculty Senate Academic Policies Committee, November 8, 2004
Martha McCaughey (chair), Tim Hueslman, Eric Marland, Rick McGarry
The Academic Policies Committee met to continue our discussion of the feasibility of College-level P&T committees, and will have a recommendation at the December Senate meeting.
Martha McCaughey, Chair
Faculty Senate Academic Policies Committee, October 11, 2004
Martha McCaughey (chair), Tim Hueslman, Eric Marland, Rick McGarry
The Academic Policies Committee met briefly on Monday, Sept. 13, 2004, and on Monday, Sept 20, 2004. We discussed the feasibility of College-Level Promotion and Tenure Committees. College-level P&T committees might combat a problem of vague rules for promotion and tenure and help ensure departments follow P&T guidelines of the University and of their own department.
So far we have considered the pros and cons of such committees and raised a number of questions about how these committees would be formulated and how they would function. Still to do: get feedback from faculty,; look into ASU’s Peer Institutions and the UNC schools to see how many operate with college-level P&T committees; and make a recommendation to the Senate.
Our committee would like to know what the Senators think about the feasibility of College-level P&T committees.
No report
