Dr. Jan French, University Faculty Council (UFC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. in the International Commons Room. She welcomed and thanked the Arts and Sciences faculty for attending the special called meeting. She also recognized the members of the UFC sub-committee on faculty governance and encouraged attendance at the full faculty meeting on Thursday, March 20 at 4 p.m.
Dr. French then turned the meeting and discussion over to Dr. Eric Yellin, chair of the subcommittee on faculty governance. Eric explained that the goal of the meeting is to hear faculty voices. Eric described the process and history of the UFC initiative to review faculty governance and to explore what would work best at the University of Richmond. In early December, UFC voted to bring the proposal to the faculty for discussion. Eric noted that the subcommittee also met with various university administrators about the proposal.
Eric outlined the following areas of concern with the current structure:
1- UFC is advisory only.
2- The determining body is university faculty meetings (UFM), but these meetings are not well-attended. When there is good attendance, the body is so large that is unwieldy for discussion and decision-making.
3 – The faculty committee structure is disconnected.
4 - The Richmond Promise asks the five schools to work closer together and the current structure does not support close collaboration.
The most important changes with a Faculty Senate model include:
1- Faculty Senate would be the determinant body, except with changes with major curricula changes and no confidence votes.
2- Faculty would have control over faculty meetings and set agendas.
3- University Faculty committees would report on a regular basis and the Senate would provide committee oversight. Eric then opened up the floor to questions from the faculty. John Gupton asked about the relationship between the Faculty Senate and the Planning and Priorities (P&P) Committee. Would a faculty senate representative serve on P&P? Eric replied that the Faculty Senate President would be an ex-officio member on Planning and Priorities. John also asked if the Senate President would be a part of the President’s Cabinet and Eric replied that the position would not be a part of this body for a variety of reasons. However, this could be revisited.
Kathrin Bower asked a follow-up question about P&P regarding the nature of communication from the Faculty Senate President to the faculty when much of the deliberation of P&P is confidential. Eric replied that most of the communication would not be released until after the Board of Trustees had approved the budget plan.
Claudia Freeman had questions about who is eligible to vote and suggested clarification on the language. She also asked how the Senate would ensure and elicit feedback and opinions from faculty? Eric replied that the goal of the Senate is to represent and speak for faculty and that all senate meetings will be open. Minutes and reports will be distributed to faculty on an ongoing basis. The Senate may be much more effective with an informed group of faculty.
Con Beausang asked about how the Senate would define a major curricular decision for full faculty vote? Eric replied that the Senate would make this determination.
Kathrin Bower asked several questions related to service commitment. Would this model add more labor and time to faculty work lives? Is having a collective voice worth the work? Do we need to consider administrative support and possible release time, especially for the Senate President? Eric replied that these are good questions and they have been discussed with administrators, but no final decisions have been made. He reiterated that the current administration is very supportive of the Senate model.
Jessie Fillerup followed up with a question about the role of pre-tenured faculty on the Senate. Would the time commitment prohibit untenured faculty to serve? Eric replied that non-tenured faculty members currently serve on UFC and the time commitment for a Senate model should not increase. He also pointed out that the Senate responsibility covers the entire university, not just Arts and Sciences.
Kathrin Bower asked about the date of June 15 for implementation. Eric and others had suggested this because it would fall after the faculty and Board of Trustees votes in April and May, but that the date could change. One advantage is that the new model would be in place as a new Provost arrives at the university. Kathrin also asked about the role of the immediate past President of the Senate. Eric clarified that the past president is ex-officio and would not have a vote, but would offer continuity.
Michelle Hamm asked how the meetings are moving forward with the other schools, especially with the issue of representation. Eric replied that some concerns have been voiced, but the subcommittee is trying to emphasize the positive points of representation and that is important to remember that the Senate would not only represent the various schools, but the university as a whole. A smaller, deliberative group will probably protect the minority more effectively and the minority would have more voice on a Senate, than a large body.
The goal is to have an electronic vote later in the spring, after the full faculty meting.
Hugh West advised the need for a good parliamentarian at the upcoming March 20 faculty meeting to make sure the process flows well. Eric Yellin also announced that two additional faculty fora will be scheduled, in addition to the March 20 full faculty meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
Dr. French then turned the meeting and discussion over to Dr. Eric Yellin, chair of the subcommittee on faculty governance. Eric explained that the goal of the meeting is to hear faculty voices. Eric described the process and history of the UFC initiative to review faculty governance and to explore what would work best at the University of Richmond. In early December, UFC voted to bring the proposal to the faculty for discussion. Eric noted that the subcommittee also met with various university administrators about the proposal.
Eric outlined the following areas of concern with the current structure:
1- UFC is advisory only.
2- The determining body is university faculty meetings (UFM), but these meetings are not well-attended. When there is good attendance, the body is so large that is unwieldy for discussion and decision-making.
3 – The faculty committee structure is disconnected.
4 - The Richmond Promise asks the five schools to work closer together and the current structure does not support close collaboration.
The most important changes with a Faculty Senate model include:
1- Faculty Senate would be the determinant body, except with changes with major curricula changes and no confidence votes.
2- Faculty would have control over faculty meetings and set agendas.
3- University Faculty committees would report on a regular basis and the Senate would provide committee oversight. Eric then opened up the floor to questions from the faculty. John Gupton asked about the relationship between the Faculty Senate and the Planning and Priorities (P&P) Committee. Would a faculty senate representative serve on P&P? Eric replied that the Faculty Senate President would be an ex-officio member on Planning and Priorities. John also asked if the Senate President would be a part of the President’s Cabinet and Eric replied that the position would not be a part of this body for a variety of reasons. However, this could be revisited.
Kathrin Bower asked a follow-up question about P&P regarding the nature of communication from the Faculty Senate President to the faculty when much of the deliberation of P&P is confidential. Eric replied that most of the communication would not be released until after the Board of Trustees had approved the budget plan.
Claudia Freeman had questions about who is eligible to vote and suggested clarification on the language. She also asked how the Senate would ensure and elicit feedback and opinions from faculty? Eric replied that the goal of the Senate is to represent and speak for faculty and that all senate meetings will be open. Minutes and reports will be distributed to faculty on an ongoing basis. The Senate may be much more effective with an informed group of faculty.
Con Beausang asked about how the Senate would define a major curricular decision for full faculty vote? Eric replied that the Senate would make this determination.
Kathrin Bower asked several questions related to service commitment. Would this model add more labor and time to faculty work lives? Is having a collective voice worth the work? Do we need to consider administrative support and possible release time, especially for the Senate President? Eric replied that these are good questions and they have been discussed with administrators, but no final decisions have been made. He reiterated that the current administration is very supportive of the Senate model.
Jessie Fillerup followed up with a question about the role of pre-tenured faculty on the Senate. Would the time commitment prohibit untenured faculty to serve? Eric replied that non-tenured faculty members currently serve on UFC and the time commitment for a Senate model should not increase. He also pointed out that the Senate responsibility covers the entire university, not just Arts and Sciences.
Kathrin Bower asked about the date of June 15 for implementation. Eric and others had suggested this because it would fall after the faculty and Board of Trustees votes in April and May, but that the date could change. One advantage is that the new model would be in place as a new Provost arrives at the university. Kathrin also asked about the role of the immediate past President of the Senate. Eric clarified that the past president is ex-officio and would not have a vote, but would offer continuity.
Michelle Hamm asked how the meetings are moving forward with the other schools, especially with the issue of representation. Eric replied that some concerns have been voiced, but the subcommittee is trying to emphasize the positive points of representation and that is important to remember that the Senate would not only represent the various schools, but the university as a whole. A smaller, deliberative group will probably protect the minority more effectively and the minority would have more voice on a Senate, than a large body.
The goal is to have an electronic vote later in the spring, after the full faculty meting.
Hugh West advised the need for a good parliamentarian at the upcoming March 20 faculty meeting to make sure the process flows well. Eric Yellin also announced that two additional faculty fora will be scheduled, in addition to the March 20 full faculty meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
No comments:
Post a Comment