Meeting Minutes, March 2, 2005
Secretary: Jody Greenslade
Present: Bob Hanson - convener, Dick Bodman, Gary Gisselman, Jim May, Arnie Ostebee, Alan Norton, Matt Richey, Marc Robinson, Mark Schelske, Nancy Thompson, Pin Wan, Paul Wojick, students – Allison Fry, Caleb Hedberg
Visitors: David Emory
Minutes of the February 23, 2005 meeting were approved as written.
1) Faculty Grievance Committee
- Discussion recapped the details of RPC’s questions to the document presented by John and Anne on Faculty Grievance.
- Why two independent 14-day processes, one (A4) to decide whether it is appropriate, the other (B1) to decide whether mediation should be the first step? One could imagine a sentence such as: "The Faculty Review Committee must determine (a) whether the petition is timely and within its scope of the grievance process and, if so, (b) whether to recommend informal mediation rather than further review by the committee." (I understand that the issue here is notification, not decision, and that the parties to whom the decisions are related are different.)
- Say the appeal is successful. The President says, "I agree, FRC should consider this." Does the clock start over? Could we be explicit about what happens then?
- If dismissed without merit, why no opportunity for appeal? Shouldn't there be something in or after B1 that parallels A6? There is no discussion here relating to what happens if the committee decides against continuing.
- In general, how does the committee decide? By consensus? By majority?
- Is the information brought forward during mediation confidential, or does FRC have some access to that? Perhaps this should be explicit.
- What fixes in your mind the point when the person against whom the grievance is directed is notified of its occurrence?
- There seems to be a repetition of information in D1 and A3. Different people are mentioned there as recipients. Do you have a suggestion for a way to clean this up?
- Should there be a time limit on the amount of mediation?
- What about summer? Sabbaticals? Situations that would really throw off the schedule? Is this adequately stated in D5?
- D4, D5, D6, and D7 seem out of place. Perhaps these should be in a section of their own, above D?
- There were some grammatical changes suggested to the Green Sheet on the changes to the Faculty Manual. RPC will make those changes prior to the Faculty Meeting.
- Wojick spoke about the objective of having the smallest possible number of committees.
- The five committees that were suggested is the Governance Committee, Curriculum Committee, Faculty Life Committee, Faculty Review Committee, and Tenure and Promotion Committee.
- There was discussion about how subcommittee structure would change, what power and duties the committees currently have, how to organize the existing committees, and if the changes should be radical.
- RPC will be sending a survey to the committee chairs.
3) Faculty Manual
- Item 1 – tenure and termination procedures are inconsistent with the Faculty by-laws. The verbage cannot be binding on the Board of Regents.
- The timeline of notification on discontinuing departments and programs should be reworded.
Next weeks agenda will be on (1) Grievance and the (2) the Faculty Manual.
Meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM. Next meeting: March 9, 2005.