Faculty Caucus Minutes

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

(Approved)

Call to Order

Senate Chairperson Holland called the meeting to order immediately following the Academic Senate meeting.

Approval of Faculty Caucus Minutes of December 5, 2007

Motion: By Senator Stewart, seconded by Senator Alferink, to approve the Faculty Caucus Minutes of December 5, 2007. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Information Item:

11.01.07.01 ASPT Calendar Proposed Revisions (Rodger Singley, University Review Committee)

Rodger Singley, University Review Committee Chairperson: This is very short and straight forward. We are looking basically at the time a candidate has to file an appeal of either a promotion and tenure decision with the DFSC/SFSC or CFSC or an evaluation review with a DFSC/SFSC. Basically, I think we are fairly familiar with the ASPT process. There is roughly a ten-day period between when the DFSC/SFSC notifies a candidate of a P and T decision. Before it is reported to the next step, the candidate must know. What we were concerned about is the way the ASPT process is currently written, a candidate could wait until the very last day of this 10 or 20 day period, depending upon which body it is being reported to, to ask the DFSC/SFSC or CFSC for a chance to appeal, which doesn’t seem like a very organized way to run the process. So, what we have proposed for the ten working day period is that the candidate must file an intent to appeal within not more than five days. For the twenty day working period, which occurs before the CFSC sends recommendations forward, the candidate must file an intent within ten days. The appeal does not have to occur within that five or ten days, just notification that the candidate wishes to appeal to provide both the candidate and the body time to organize a process and have a real hearing. So, this is what has been discussed within the URC. We approved it and would like to bring it forward for consideration.

Senator Borg: In reading this, I think that the policy is necessary and I wholeheartedly support what is intended here, but in bold face and underlining, it sounds like a candidate must request a meeting. Perhaps a friendly amendment would be a candidate must request “such” a meeting. What I am suggesting is that someone could misread this and think that whether you want one or not, you must request a meeting and that is not what the intent is.

Professor Singley: Very good point. I agree.

Senator Borg: I don’t know if that is exactly the way in which to ameliorate the situation, but the suggestion is to add “such” in all three cases.

Professor Singley: Point taken. I agree we need to clarify that.

Senator Wang: What is the current policy?

Professor Singley: There really isn’t one. The non-bolded part is pulled directly as written. There have been a couple of cases over the years where candidates have not waited until the last minute, but the afternoon of the very last day, forcing a very quick meeting of a DFSC/SFSC or CFSC to stay within the ASPT process.

Senator Wang: So, currently there is no policy with regard to when this meeting should be held?

Professor Singley: The meeting could still be held at the very end, but we want to make sure that there is time to organize a meeting and to get any data, facts, etc. as necessary.

Senator Holland: We could potentially take this to an action item this evening. Is there an immediate necessity for this? Otherwise, we can wait for two weeks.

Professor Singley: I don’t think there is a problem within the next two weeks. The only time period would be when they prepare to print the next book and I don’t think that we are anywhere near that deadline. So, two weeks would easily be not a problem.

Senator Holland: It would be very quick, but it is a change in the ASPT process and I would kind of like people to have time to mull it over and see if they can think of any potential reason why this wouldn’t be a good idea.

Professor Singley: Senator Borg has made a good suggestion. I would hate for people to think that they must schedule a meeting.

Senator Holland: This will probably come back to us in two weeks as an Action Item.

Adjournment

Motion: By Senator Stewart, seconded by Senator Borg, to adjourn. The motion was unanimously approved.