At 3:17 p.m. on December 3, 2001, Chair Weitz convened the Faculty Senate meeting in the University Conference Room (224 Greer Hall).
I. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. VISITORS.
Weitz welcomed visitors and asked that they introduce themselves.
(See voting sheet for visitors’ names.)
B. RESOLUTIONS
UPDATE. Weitz updated the Senate on two motions passed by the
Senate that have been acted upon by the Chancellor: 1) textbook rental
program; 2) faculty evaluations of deans. The textbook rental program
motion was not supported by the Chancellor because the Chancellor believes,
after receiving input from various parties on campus, that the advantages
of the textbook rental program outweigh the disadvantages. The faculty
evaluations of deans motion was modified and approved by the Chancellor.
The modification is that the last sentence in item #1 under “Procedures”
was eliminated from the procedures. That section stated that, “Deans
will be required to sign a waiver that will allow the release of the results
of the Reading Committee (described in item #4) and to release a summary
report to the faculty in their colleges/school.”
C. BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MEETING. Weitz encouraged all senators to attend the Board of
Trustees meeting on Friday, December 7. Weitz asked the following
senators to attend the appropriate BOT subcommittee meetings: Simon
- Academic Affairs, Petschauer - Business Affairs, Rardin - Student Development,
and Abbott - University Advancement.
D. VOTING.
Weitz noted that the written tallies from the last meeting did not equate
with the hand count. Weitz asked senators to not change their votes
after the hand count because the hand count is official. Weitz asked
parliamentarian Gates to see whether further action was required.
II. VISITORS
III. MINUTES
Simon moved and Petschauer
seconded to approve the November 12 minutes as written.
VOTE # 1 19 yes 0 no 0 abstain The motion passed.
IV. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. SUB-COMMITTEE
ON EQUITY OFFICE
New
draft of FS0102/09-02 - Motion Regarding Recommendations on Equity Office.
Weitz reported that the sub-committee (Weitz, Koch, Marking, Rardin, Petschauer,
and Woodworth) met twice (and over email) to look at the recommendations.
Weitz noted that there was a new revision on pink paper (instead of what
was attached to the agenda) for senators to review. Weitz noted in
a preamble that what the sub-committee was trying to pursue was the best
structure for this university at this point and time. It may not
be perfect, but it is hoped that it will be better than what is currently
in place. The recommendation is based on structure, not personalities.
Before the Equity Office was formed, there were three functions: 1) compliance;
2) education; and 3) investigation. Investigation and education was
then placed in the Equity Office and compliance was separated out.
The proposed motion puts compliance and education together, and separates
out investigation. The new motion divides these functions into two
offices: 1) The Office of Equal Opportunity and Compliance Programs, with
the function being education, equal opportunity, and compliance; and, 2)
The Office of the University Ombuds, with the function of receiving and
investigating complaints by any person affiliated with the University.
Weitz noted that there is a concern with the name of this office.
“Ombud” is not a bonafide word--”ombudsman” is. Some members of the
sub-committee thought ombudsman a sexist term so they shortened it to ombuds.
Weitz went on to say that because there was so much concern over investigations,
the sub-committee wanted this office to be independent of all structures
within the University.
Simon suggested calling the office the Disputes
Resolution Center. Arnold asked, since this office will service faculty,
staff, and students, why only tenured faculty are to serve as the Ombuds
Officer. Koch replied that most disputes will probably involve faculty
and it is a way to bring a faculty member back into the process.
He added that Ohio University was used as the model program and that is
what they use. Woodworth then noted that at Ohio University, there
are two 1/2-time positions; one tenured faculty member and the other position
is currently held by staff. The person she spoke to at Ohio University
gave a compelling argument as to why it is important to have two positions.
One argument was to help with a conflict of interest. Another was
to have a broader representation of the university and another was to have
someone to talk to about a case (due to the anonominity and confidentiality
of a case). She then moved and Marking seconded to amend the motion so
that Appalachian’s office have two 1/2-time positions; one tenured faculty
member and one that could be held by a faculty member or staff person.
VOTE # 2 19 yes 2 no 0 abstain The amendment passed.
Discussion then followed on item #6 dealing with the Duties of the University Ombuds Office. After some discussion, Rardin moved and Marking seconded to amend #6 to read, “If the efforts at facilitation fail and further action is pursued, the Ombuds Officer will direct the grievant to the appropriate university grievance process or administrative office. Personnel in the University Ombuds Office are not permitted to testify at any formal proceedings.”
VOTE # 3 23 yes 0 no 0 abstain The amendment passed.
Woodworth noted that at Ohio University, its Ombuds Office is
not an office of record (no records are kept). Because it is not
an office of record, it does not receive accusations of sexual harassment.
Rardin asked if the office received criminal complaints. Weitz noted
that she will find out if this is because of federal law, state law, or
university mandate. Rardin noted that at Ohio University, its Ombuds
Office receives informal complaints which helps keep anonominity.
Durham asked if the proposed office would receive pay equity complaints.
Weitz responded that it would--that the sub-committee left it open for
the office to receive any complaint.
Discussion followed on the name of the proposed
office. A handvote was taken on the three proposed names: 1) Ombudsman
- 14 yes; 2) University Ombuds Officer - 2 yes; and 3) Dispute Resolution
Officer - 7 yes. A vote was then taken on the proposed motion as
amended.
VOTE # 4 22 yes 1 no 0 abstain The motion passed.
B. ACADEMIC POLICY
COMMITTEE
1. FS0102/12-01 - Motion Regarding Curriculum Change Process.
Weitz noted that this motion has to do with the curriculum process--the
process by which curricula are changed and approved. There seem to
be differing opinions as to what the Faculty Handbook means by this.
In practice and in history, program changes or where a program is to be
housed have been viewed by the Provost as administrative decisions and
therefore not subject to the curriculum process. However, some faculty
feel that these decisions are curriculum changes in structure and therefore
do need to go through the curriculum process. This motion is to clarify
that indeed those type of changes should go through the process like all
other changes. The rationale is that that is what the Handbook says
and it does not compromise the Provost’s authority. Moore further
clarified that this motion had been initiated because AP&P has not
been involved in these kind of changes and it needs to be.
A vote was taken on the motion as written.
VOTE # 5 23 yes 0 no 0 abstain The motion passed.
2. FS0102/12-02 - Motion Regarding Part-time Faculty. Simon
noted that Hall offered the motion and that there were visitors present
who would like to contribute to the discussion. Hall reported that
the motion is an attempt to bring two concerns together. One concern
is the use of faculty salary money and the other is to address a concern
with respect to the heavy use of part-time faculty. Durham noted
that we cannot just create new positions to pay part-time faculty.
McLaughlin noted that he was unclear what the motion was about--how the
101-1310 funds relates to decreasing the number of part-time faculty.
Hall noted that there is not enough full-time faculty in some departments
which increases the reliance upon part-time faculty. Koch added that
after serving on the Workload Ad-hoc Committee, he became aware that part-time
faculty bring relief to overloaded departments.
Michael Krenn, chair of the History Department,
then spoke to the Senate. Krenn noted that the History department
relies heavily on part-time faculty to teach the service sections of history
courses. He added that part-time faculty are a valuable part of his
department, but in pay and benefits they are treated as second-class citizens.
What Krenn would like the Senate or the University to address is how to
make part-timers more appreciated on campus. He would like to see
the University keep the best of our part-timers and provide them with adequate
salaries and benefits. It is next to impossible to keep part-time
faculty or recruit new ones to come to Boone with the low salaries that
are offered. Krenn noted that he does not think that the History
Department’s problems are going to be solved by hiring a few more full-time
faculty. Moore suggested taking the tuition increase salary money
for 2002-2003 and applying it towards workload issues involving part-time
faculty.
McLaughlin noted that the Budget Committee
is looking into the issue of 101-1310 lines as well and that it is a very
complicated issue. Petschauer added that the Budget Committee would
like to bring forth a motion after it does its research. Moore asked
if the motion on the table would then be needed. Weitz asked what
the Senate wanted to do with this motion on the table and what it wanted
to do with the issue of part-time faculty. Woodworth moved and Marking
seconded to table the motion until the Senate hears the report from the
Budget Committee.
VOTE # 6 24 yes 0 no 0 abstain The motion passed.
Weitz asked what should be done with the part-time faculty issue. Woodworth asked if there was a senator who served on the Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee. Weitz replied that Barber is the Senate’s liaison with the Committee. Weitz noted that she will contact that Committee. McKinney thanked Hall for bringing this to the attention of the Senate. Durham added that in the Fact Book one could find the 5-year history of every department’s full and part-time faculty. Arnold noted that part-time faculty are hired to try to deal with the workload issue, but if you look at departments who use the most part-time faculty, the full-time faculty are still teaching four classes. Moore then asked for the definition of the problem of part-time faculty--is it that there are too many, not appreciated, over-worked? The response was all of these. Roger Winsor then distributed to senators and reviewed copies of the figures from the Fact Book. Weitz asked if the Senate wanted to pursue part-time faculty issues in areas beyond the Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee and the Workload Ad-hoc Committee. McLaughlin responded that it would be a good idea to hear from the Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee before deciding. Weitz said she would contact the Committee and make a report at the January meeting.
C. WELFARE AND MORALE
REPORT:
1. Brief report by Arnold on the App House/NY Loft directors meeting
that was held.
2. The committee is still working on the status of the Traffic and
Safety Committee.
3. The committee has no new suggestions about the enforcement of "No
Smoking" outside of buildings. We welcome any ideas about how to
enforce the signs and information that already exist, for example, outside
of Whitener Hall.
Arnold reported briefly on the meeting held on November 30 between past
App House/NY Loft directors and the Off-Campus Advisory Board. He
noted that it was a very productive meeting and that there were approximately
25 attendees, most of whom were former directors of the Loft and App House.
A number of recommendations were made but he was not ready to go over those
yet. Weitz asked if the recommendations were going to be handled
through the Off-Campus Advisory Board or will they come before the Senate.
Arnold responded that he thought they would be handled through the
Board and Academic Affairs but that one of the recommendations made was
that the Faculty Senate have a representative on that Board. Weitz
asked Ward if the Senate could receive a report when the changes were finally
made. Ward replied that he would keep the Senate abreast of the developments
that occur. Weitz then asked how soon these changes would be in place.
Ward responded that he was not certain, but that if the Senate needed an
update on a specific recommendation, he would be happy to report on it.
D. CAMPUS PLANNING
COMMITTEE
1. FS0102/12-03 - Motion Regarding Archaeology and Natural Resources
Concerns. Abbott reported that in response to the Senate’s November
meeting, Whyte drafted the proposed motion. A vote was taken on the
motion as written.
VOTE # 7 24 yes 0 no 0 abstain The motion passed.
E. COMMITTEE ON
COMMITTEES
1. University committee membership recommendations.
The Committee presented their recommendations for University committee
and Faculty Senate replacements. (note - all terms are for the 2001-2002
Academic Year only):
Cultural Affairs Advisory Committee
Victoria Cox (FL&L) to replace Gary
Nemcosky (Art).
Faculty Senate
Jeremy B. Fox (MGT) to replace Stella
Anderson (MGT) beginning in January.
The committee needs to find individuals to serve on the following:
Cultural Affairs Advisory Committee
There is one additional vacancy on this committee.
The faculty member can be from any area of the University.
Weitz noted that Nemcosky will be back on campus this spring and thus could resume his position on the Cultural Affairs Advisory Committee. It was suggested that Victoria Cox then fill the additional vacancy on the Committee. A vote was taken on Fox replacing Anderson until the end of this Senate year and Cox to fill the additional vacancy on the Cultural Affairs Advisory Committee.
VOTE # 8 22 yes 1 no 1 abstain The motion passed.
F. BUDGET COMMITTEE
1. Administrative
Salaries Report. Millsaps noted that one of the charges to the
Budget Committee was to look at raises for faculty versus raises for administrators.
Millsaps went over the 2000-2001 BD-119 report and took a sample of 40
faculty and 30 administrators and calculated their annual percentage raise.
The data is reflected in the report by the Budget Committee. Millsaps
said he would do a sample and report on the current 2001-2002 BD-119 when
it becomes available. It was noted that for 2001-2002, administrators
received the $625 pay increase. Weitz noted that this comparison
is a continued charge of the Budget Committee.
Budget Committee Report
Subject: Comparison
of Faculty and Administrator Percentage Raises
Summary: Using a random number table and
the BD 119 Salary Document for
the period 2000-2001, a random sample of 40 continuing faculty
and 30 administrators was selected and their percentage raise
recorded. The sample average raise for the faculty was 5.24%
and the sample average raise for the administrators was 5.62%.
The null hypothesis of NO DIFFERENCE IN THE AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE RAISE could not be rejected with the chance
of error present at 5%. (See below)
Both samples appear to be representative of the university as a
whole: approximately 50% from Arts and Sciences with the
remaining 50% roughly equally divided between the other four
Colleges/Schools.
Action: Conduct a similar
survey using the current 2001-2002 Budget
Document. If statistically significant differences in average raise
percentages are demonstrated in the samples, conduct a census
of all faculty and administrators. Such a study could be completed
sometime during the Spring 2002 term.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Millsaps
Comparison of Percentage Raises for Faculty and
Administrators
2000-2001 Academic Year
Data Source: BD 119
|
|
|
|
|
Sample Size =
|
|
|
|
Average Raise (%) =
|
|
|
|
High =
|
|
|
|
Low =
|
|
|
|
Standard Deviation =
|
|
|
Research Question:
Is there a difference in the average percentage
raise between faculty and administrators for the period 2000 to 2001?
Null Hypothesis:
There is no difference in the average % raise.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference
in the average % raise.
Null Hypothesis: u_f = u_a
Alternative Hypothesis: u_f <> u_a
where u_f = average %
raise for faculty
u_a = average % raise for admininstrators
Level of Significance = 0.05 [5 %
chance or error if null is rejected]
Decision Rule = Reject Null Hypothesis is sample
t > t critical or sample t < -t critical
t critical = 2.00
Difference in Sample Means = 0.38
Standard Error = 0.46
Sample t = 0.83
Decision = Do not reject null hypotnesis
Conclusion = No, based on this sample evidence,
we cannot conclude that there is a difference in the average
percentage raise between faculty and administrators
for the period 2000 to 2001.
G. FACULTY HANDBOOK
COMMITTEE
No report.
H. AD-HOC
COMMITTEE ON IMPROVING APPALACHIAN’S ATTRACTIVENESS
Truett noted that they will report at the January meeting.
I. AGENDA COMMITTEE
No report.
J. WELFARE OF STUDENTS
COMMITTEE
No report.
K. AD-HOC COMMITTEE
ON DPCs
No report.
L. AD-HOC COMMITTEE
ON WORKLOAD IMPLEMENTATION
No report.
M. AD-HOC COMMITTEE
ON ATHLETIC STATEMENT
No report.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Parking Deck.
Bush reported on the Traffic Management and Safety Committee. A random
survey is being done regarding the parking deck. Results are expected
in January. Koch asked if discussion has taken place regarding all
the parking spaces that will displaced for the parking deck. Bush
responded that is has not--that pricing the deck is the immediate concern.
B. AppHouse/Loft.
Yaukey asked who will serve from the Senate as the liaison on the Off-Campus
Advisory Board. Yaukey and Marking will serve alternating.
Weitz noted that she will contact Mick Kreszock to let him know about Yaukey
and Marking. Next year, Committee on Committees will need to make
the recommendation.
C. Whitener/Howard
Street. Moore asked about Whitener Hall being demolished and
a new 2-lane street being established. Is this something the Traffic
Management and Safety Committee needs to look into. Bush noted that
Helm has said when it comes time to address that area, it will be discussed.
Woodworth added that the Welfare and Morale Committee has the
Traffic
Management and Safety Committee on its agenda for the January meeting.
At this time McKinney moved and Koch seconded that for faculty to work at Appalachian they need a place to park. Therefore, faculty should be provided with free parking. Discussion followed as to whether this includes faculty and staff. Bush noted that this has already been mentioned by the Traffic Management and Safety Committee and that Helm has stated that the state legislature has decided that all will pay. Abbott, as chair of the Campus Planning Committee, will check on this statement. Truett called for the question.
VOTE # 9 8 yes 16 no 0 abstain The motion was not carried.
Yaukey moved and Muir seconded to table the motion until the Campus Planning brings a report at the January meeting.
VOTE #10 21 yes 3 no 0 abstain The motion carried.
Simon moved to adjourn and Marking seconded.
VOTE # 11 16 yes 0 no 0 abstain The motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 5:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Moore
voting symbols: Y = yes N - no A = abstain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ABBOTT, JOHN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ALLEN, PATRICIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| ANDERSON, STELLA excused | |||||||||||
| ARNOLD, CHIP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BARBER, BILL excused | |||||||||||
| BUSH, ROBERT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BUTTS, JEFF excused | |||||||||||
| CROCKER, DEBORAH |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GATES, PAUL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HALL, KIM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KOCH, ANDY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LONG, BETTY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MARKING, MARTHA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MCKINNEY, HAROLD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MCLAUGHLIN, TOM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MILLSAPS, STEVE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MOORE, MIKE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MUIR, KEN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| PETSCHAUER, PETER |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| POPE, JANICE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RARDIN, PATRICK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SIMON, STEVE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TRUETT, CAROL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| WEITZ, GAYLE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| WHYTE, TOM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| WOODWORTH, JOAN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| YAUKEY, MARGARET |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VISITORS: Michael Krenn, History; Cheryl Lee, Family and Consumer Sciences; Ralph Lentz, History; David Phoenix, Management; Bill Ward, Academic Affairs; Nathan Winkler, student; Roger Winsor, Geography and Planning.
VOTE 1: Approve November 12 minutes as written
VOTE 2: amend motion FS0102/09-02 - Motion Regarding Recommendations
on Equity Office (2 1/2-time positions)
VOTE 3: amend motion FS0102/09-02 (#6)
VOTE 4: FS0102/09-02 - Motion Regarding Recommendations on Equity
Office
VOTE 5: FS0102/12-01 - Motion Regarding Curriculum Change Process
VOTE 6: Table FS0101/12-02 - Motion Regarding Part-time faculty
VOTE 7: FS0102/12-03 - Motion Regarding Archaeology and Natural
Resources Concerns
VOTE 8: Committee on Committees recommendations
VOTE 9: Call for the question
VOTE 10: Table motion regarding free parking
VOTE 11: Adjourn