Faculty Caucus Minutes
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
(Approved)
Call to Order
Senate Chairperson Holland called the caucus
to order immediately following the Senate meeting.
Approval of Faculty Caucus Minutes of January 23,
2008
Motion: By Senator Fazel, seconded
by Senator Alferink, to approve the Faculty Caucus Minutes of January 23, 2008.
The minutes were unanimously approved.
Action Item:
01.29.08.01 ASPT Calendar Proposed Revisions
(University Review Committee Representative)
The
proposed ASPT Calendar revisions were previously presented to the Faculty
Caucus as an Information Item on January 23, 2008 by Rodger Singley, University
Review Committee Chairperson. At that time, Senator Borg noted that the
language appeared to require a meeting be requested whether a faculty member
desired an appeal or not. He suggested adding “such a meeting” so that it would
be clear that a meeting could be requested in the context of an appeal, but
that it was not mandatory to request a meeting. The URC, therefore, revised the
language and forwarded the revised document to the Academic Senate Faculty Caucus
for approval.
The proposed changes are in
bold:
REVISION AS OF
A. Calendar for Promotion and Tenure: (ASPT Page 53 and continuing)
November 15 DFSC/SFSC must notify promotion and tenure candidates, in writing, of intended recommendations to CFSC at least 10 working days before submitting these recommendations to CFSC and provide opportunity, if requested, for the candidates to meet with the committee to discuss these recommendations. If the candidate wishes to request a formal meeting to discuss the DFSC/SFSC recommendation, then the candidate must request a meeting with the DFSC/SFSC within 5 working days of receiving the recommendation.
February 1 CFSC must notify candidates of intended recommendations and provide opportunity, if requested, for candidates to meet with the committee to discuss these recommendations. If the candidate wishes to request a formal meeting to discuss the CFSC recommendation, then the candidate must request a meeting with the CFSC within 10 working days of receiving the recommendation.
C. Calendar for Performance Evaluation Review: (ASPT Page 55)
February 1 DFSC/SFSC recommendations for performance evaluation must be reported to the candidate by February 1 in each year that the faculty member is performance-evaluation eligible. DFSC/SFSC must notify candidates of intended recommendations to CFSC at least 10 working days before submitting these recommendations to CFSC and provide opportunity, if requested, for the candidates to meet with the committee to discuss these recommendations. If the candidate wishes to request a formal meeting to discuss the DFSC/SFSC recommendation, then the candidate must request a meeting with the DFSC/SFSC within 5 working days of receiving the recommendation.
Since
no member of the URC was available to attend the Faculty Caucus this evening,
Senator Fazel was asked to address any questions that might arise.
Senator
Holland reminded the caucus that the proposed changes to the calendar involved
requiring a faculty member to make his/her intent to appeal known no later than
five days for the ten-day DFSC/SFSC deadline and no later than ten days for the
20-day CFSC deadline. Senator Wang noted that the most recent language revisions
to the document were rather repetitive. Senator Fazel responded that the URC
wanted to ensure that the meaning of the language was completely unambiguous,
so certain language was repeated within the document in each of the three
paragraphs.
Senator
Ellerton noted that if the campus happened to be closed, such as it was on
February 1 due to the weather, then a letter of recommendation might not be
issued within the requisite five days. She asked if it were a tacit assumption
of five days after the receipt of the recommendation. Senator Holland clarified
that the requirement was for five “working days”. The day(s) on which the university
is closed, for whatever reason, would not be considered as “working days”. Senator Wang noted that the ASPT calendar includes
specific dates: November 15 and February 1. He asked if in the event either of
these dates fell on a Saturday or Sunday, whether the deadline would be moved
to the next working day. Senator Fazel responded that she assumed that it would
be the next working day, but that she was not completely sure. Senator Holland
stated that that, too, would probably be covered by the term “working day”.
Motion: By Senator Alferink,
seconded by Senator Stewart, to approve the revisions to the ASPT Calendar. The
revisions were unanimously approved.
Adjournment
Motion: By Senator Klitzing, seconded by Senator Stewart, to adjourn. The motion was unanimously approved.