Auburn University Senate Minutes
September 4, 2001
Broun
Hall Auditorium
Absent: S. Taylor, D. Bransby, W. Bergen, K. Tilt,
C. Hudson, M. El-Halwagi, C. Gross, R. Zee, R. Broughton, J. Bolton, R.
Crocker, R. Good, G. Pettitt, J. Bannon, M. Reinke, K. Krueger, C. Hageman, C.
Buchanan, T. McMurtrie, D. Large, J. Fletcher, D. Bennett, B. Witt, J.
Pritchett, B. Riddick-Seals, C. Harvey, E. Hix, C. Bailey.
Absent (substitute): H. Guffey (F. Laumer), B. Bowman (L. Crowley), D.
Hendrix (D. Umphress), E. Winn (D. Sutton), R. Weigel (J. Jakeman), C. Brunner
(M. Boudreaux), R. Britnell (C. Hartsfield), L. Evans (substitute).
Call to Order
The minutes for the last
meeting were approved as posted on the web. They may be viewed at the Senate
Home Page at www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule.html July 12, 2001.
The Rules Committee’s
nominations for Senate and University committees for 2001-02 were approved as
posted on the web.
Announcements
[first part of announcements
inaudible on tape]
At this juncture, it looks
like the 02 budget from the state will be about 3% below what the budget was
for the beginning of this year. That’s the pre-prorated budget about 3% below
that. We have calculated into our budget a proration reserve of about 3%,
anticipating that if nothing else changes, the state budget will again be
prorated by as much as 3%, if not more.
I wish I could offer you
more encouragement on the budget. Those of you who are in the business of
predicting the economy can perhaps provide more insight into it than I can.
Having to deal with the numbers I am presented with I must say is frustrating.
I know it is equally frustrating for you.
We have received the
enrollment numbers for the current semester. The enrollment of Auburn
University is at an all-time high, even though the freshman class is down. The
freshman class this year has 113 fewer students than last year’s freshman
class. That was done purposefully because last year we exceeded our capability
to handle the numbers. We currently have 22,463 students enrolled. That
compares to 21,860 for last year. That is a 2.76% increase. We have a reduction
of 9 graduate students. The number of new freshman is 3751; that compares with
3864 a year ago. I am pleased to report that the number of African-American
students has increased from 273 to 338, an increase of 65 students, or almost
24%. So, we are very pleased with that number.
More interesting is that we
have changed our admission procedure. In fact, students are currently being
admitted for Fall 02 if they are good enough. So the comparative numbers we
have as of August 28 are that we received 1551 applications for Fall 01 and
2206 applications for Fall 02. That is a 40% increase. We have already admitted
1142 students for Fall of 02, whereas this time last year that number was about
900. It looks like the enrollments are holding and we will continue to
experience the potential for growth that we have had.
One of the things we are
going to have to tackle is how many students we want at this institution.
Auburn University is an institution where students want to attend. It is an
institution where people feel that they get a great deal for the investment
they make. I don’t think there is any question that if we set our goal, we can
probably increase the enrollment of this institution considerably. That is not
one of my goals, but that is a decision that the faculty and the Board are
going to have to make. Personally, I think the size of the institution is just
right where it is.
Finally, the last thing has
to do with the Arthur Anderson report. We have received the faculty report and
I have reviewed it once. I will be reviewing it again more carefully over the
next couple of days. It is my intention to have my final decision concerning
recommendations in that report out by September 16. I will probably meet with
Vice President DeMent and give her the report so she can take it to the folks
over in Alumni and Development who are the ones affected by it. At probably
about the same time I will give it to the Senate Chair and the chair of the
three boards involved and ask them to delay publishing that for one day. Then
we would put the report on the web for everyone to see. If there is a better
way to do it, that’s fine; it just seems to me that the people at Alumni and
Development need to receive the information first.
Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: It happened so fast, so I hope you can explain what
went on at the Board meeting when Dr. Weary, who was brought in as a person to
help us conduct a presidential search, came up with an eight-point plan that
none of us had seen. This is now, apparently, what we are going to do as an
institution. He has been hired for as long as it takes to accomplish that. I’m
not exactly sure about what happened, but it happened fast and was pretty big.
Dr. Walker:
When Dr. Weary left, he sent me a very abbreviated report saying he was in the
process of writing his report and would have it in September. He listed eight
items that he thought we needed to do and suggested that we not distribute
those publicly until the final report. I suppose he has some more people
(faculty, staff, and Board members) that he wants to talk to. That was
consistent with my thinking. He was at the meeting on Friday and the Board
asked him to give a tentative report. I think the remarkable thing is that when
Bill Weary first came here, my impression was that he thought the search should
go on immediately. After meeting with people, he was convinced that the search
could not go on, as everyone had recommended. So, I really don’t make much of
what happened. I am anxious to get that report, just as you are. As soon as I
get it, I will put it on the web.
Ms. Sheppard: Did you get the sense that it
had been approved, though? The Board hired him.
Dr. Walker: No. I think
they want to see the report too.
Ms. Sheppard: It just seems to circumvent any
process that faculty or anyone else would be involved in. This one consultant
hired by the Board comes up with an eight-point plan that is supposed to lead
us into the next millennium.
Dr. Walker: Keep in mind that the University Senate and
everyone else has asked the Board to delay the search. I think the Board was
prepared to do that a month ago when they got visited by the Governor, who had
also asked for the search to be delayed. Don’t look to me to make sense of all
this. I can give you my personal opinion of Bill Weary. I think he is a
brilliant individual and has the unique capability to sit with a group of
people, interact with them, and come away with a good view of what the issues
are. I have never seen anyone do that as effectively as this guy. That doesn’t
answer any of your questions.
Marty Olliff, Library: In looking at the
faculty report from the Faculty Review Committee on the Arthur Anderson report
as well as the reports that have been generated internally and the Alumni
Board, I wonder if it is prudent to move forward in such as short timetable and
attempt to implement any or all of the recommendations. Furthermore, I would
like to ask a second question concerning the concerns that the Faculty Review
Committee had. They said there is no indication of the percentage or number of
respondents who reportedly observed particular problems. There is no way to
tell whether the responses were weighted equally and furthermore that the lack
of growth in Auburn’s endowment could plausibly be explained by factors
independent of the organization and management of Alumni and Development. I am
quoting from them right here. I wonder in those first two, if prior to
September 15 or any considerations of any recommendations if there is any
effort underway to gather together who the respondents were and to find out
whether these are weighted equally and if there are efforts to correct this
methodological problem, if the consultants are to correct this before September
15, who is trying to correct this? By what process are they doing it? What
efforts are being made to determine one of the big problems noted by Arthur
Anderson, this lack of growth of the endowment? Are there any efforts being
made to address these problems as noted in the document from the Faculty
Committee, Alumni Committee, and Alumni Consultant. If so, what are they and
who are conducting these. And, then again, is September 15 too early?
Dr. Walker: I do not think that September 15 is too
early. I think that no matter when a decision such as this would be made, there
will be those who will find reasons as to why it should not be made. That is
the nature of human beings, I think. The comments made by the faculty committee
were excellent. I think they raised concerns that I have and if you want to
check the sources on the Arthur Anderson report you may certainly do so. I have
asked for input from all creation on this report and on this issue. I think it
is time now to put together all of that information and formulate a final
decision.
Dr. Olliff: In light of the severe concerns that the faculty and
alumni have expressed in the way that Arthur Anderson came away with their
findings, are you going to attempt to address these point-by-point issues?
Dr. Walker: What I will do is address the
recommendations point-by-point and tell you what I am going to do, whether I am
going to accept or reject the recommendation or do something different.
Christa Slaton, Political Science: I
have no reason to doubt your
attentiveness to the needs of everyone on campus. I have a little bit of a
concern with paying so much for outside consultants who tell us things we would
know if we would listen to faculty. I think there is tremendous brilliance in
the leadership of the Senate, especially demonstrated by Jim Bradley and
Isabelle Thompson. I would like for you to comment on their recommendations
printed in the Auburn Bulletin, the fourteen recommendations on how to
address the problems at Auburn.
Dr. Walker: I cannot comment very authoritatively on it.
I did not see it in the paper, even though Jim sent me a copy of the letter. I
did not agree with some of the comments that were made, and my own position was
not accurately stated. That letter reflected some opinions, and I a respect
them but don’t necessarily agree with them. I don’t recall the details of the
letter that much, but I would be happy to sit down with you and comment on them
if you wish. I don’t mean that Jim misrepresented me intentionally; I believe
that the letter said that I believed all the problems were financially based,
and I don’t believe that. I believe that a significant portion of the problems
we have faced would most likely not be here if our finances were in the
situation they should be in.
We will be back in here next
week for the General Faculty meeting on Tuesday, September 11 at 3:00 p.m.
The Outreach Ad Hoc
Committee report will be presented by Dr. Flynt at the meeting in October. Dr.
Flynt is out of town and could not be here to make the presentation today.
I wanted to say a few things
about the Board of Trustees meeting I attended on Friday. Let me give you a
little more information about the subject brought up a few minutes ago on Bill
Weary’s recommendations. I did prepare a list of those eight from my own notes
and from the web. What Mr. Weary wants to do is address all of these eight
issues before a presidential search is initiated. That is my understanding at
this point. Keep in mind what Dr. Walker told us, that these are tentative
goals that Bill Weary presented in his preliminary report last Friday. Each one
of those is quite substantial. In case all of you haven’t seen these on the
web, I wanted to display them here.
Steve Knowlton, Physics: Would
you explain what point number one means?
Dr. Bradley:
I am not sure. I would hazard a guess that this was already underway. The
opportunities for faculty to have positions ex-officio on Board committees
would Fall under this first category. I do not know what all he has in mind for
number one.
The next item has to do with
the Board of Trustees and the recent bylaws changes they have made that allow
faculty members on each of their committees. You may recall that the Academic
Affairs Committee will have the Chair of the University Senate on it, and the
Athletics Committee will have the Chair of the Committee on Intercollegiate
Athletics as an ex-officio member. There are four remaining Board committees,
and the Board bylaws provide for the Rules Committee of the Senate to select
nominees to sit on those committees.
The bylaws as amended by the
Board specify the Colleges and Schools that the committee members must come
from. We tried for many months to get this opened up a little more, but Mr.
Samford said this is the way they want it to go.
The recommendations of the
Rules Committee for the procedure select these faculty members. The function of
the Rules Committee is to present these recommendations, so I would like to
present these recommendations for your approval and/or discussion. These do not
have to go through a Handbook Committee, but they come forth as recommendations
as to how we would like to select the nominees for these committees.
[handout]
The Board of Trustees has
changed its bylaws to allow a faculty member to serve ex officio on each of its
committees except for the Executive Committee.
The faculty representatives on the Athletics Committee and the Academic
Affairs Committee will be the Chair of the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics
and the Chair of the University Senate, respectively. Faculty representatives on the four remaining committees are to
be appointed by the President from nominees submitted by the Senate Rules
Committee. The faculty representatives
will be non-voting but will be able to speak at the committee meetings and have
their comments included as part of the minutes. The Board has specified that,
to be eligible, faculty members must come from particular Colleges and
Schools. These are the four committees
and the restriction on faculty discipline.
The Senate Rules Committee
recommends the following procedure for procuring nominees and making
appointments to the four Board committees listed above.
[End of handout]
Herb Rotfeld, Steering Committee: Are you saying that the administrators are not
eligible for selection of these posts or can these posts also include
department heads, assistant deans, deans, etc.?
Dr. Bradley: To speak for myself, I think that implicit
in our discussions was that these positions would be filled by faculty who were
not administrators. I see the Rules Committee members here nodding yes that is
correct.
Barbara Struempler, Chair-Elect: I thought
most of the committee members were not allowed to be from the administrative
side. When I was Secretary years ago, that was in place. Did that change
somewhere?
Isabelle Thompson, Secretary: It
is written in the charges for each committee who is eligible and who isn’t.
Some of the committees have deans and department heads. Most of them are
designated as faculty members only, but it is not true for all of them anymore.
Dr. Bradley:
As I said, this does not need to go to the Handbook Committee, but the Rules
Committee seems to be in agreement that for these particular committees there
will not be administrators nominated.
The reason for soliciting
nominees from the General Faculty, which we would do next week and approve
this, is to give people who are not included in the Schools and Colleges I have
here to nominate people.
Jo Heath, Visitor:
I think this should be in the
Handbook. It would give it more force and permanence.
The
recommendation from the Rules Committee was approved by a voice vote.
Action Items
[committee report]
Guidelines
for Establishing and Filling Positions in the Lecturer title series
Executive Summary
The Lecturer title series is a professional series for full
time appointment of appropriately qualified individuals who contribute to the
university's academic mission through instruction of undergraduate students. Appointments to the Lecturer title series
are not intended to be used to replace tenure track positions.
Criteria for appointment, performance review and promotion
in the Lecturer title series are given herein.
Appointment, review and promotion in the Lecturer title series require
demonstrated excellence in instruction of undergraduate students. Promotion to Associate Lecturer will result
in a promotion salary increment equal to the promotion salary increment for
promotion to Associate Professor, and promotion to Senior Lecturer will result
in a promotion salary increment equal to the promotion salary increment for
promotion to Full Professor. Employment
as an Associate Lecturer or Senior Lecturer requires evidence of prior or
current success as a Lecturer.
Appointees in the Lecturer title series are not eligible for tenure.
An Assistant Lecturer shall be appointed with a one year
contract that may be renewed annually but not to exceed six years. An Assistant
Lecturer is therefore limited to six years under contract. An Associate
Lecturer shall be appointed with a two year contract that may be renewed
biennially without limitation. A Senior Lecturer shall be appointed with a
three year contract that may be renewed triennially without limitation. All
appointees in the Lecturer title series will have written employment contracts. A
contract year shall be understood to mean, in this chapter, either a 9
month academic year or a 12 month calendar year.
Appointees in the Lecturer title series are full time
members of the university faculty and are under the supervision of the
department head/chair or unit head.
They are eligible for all the benefits of the tenure track faculty
except tenure and professional improvement leave.
No new Lecturer position
will be proposed or established in any department or unit if that would result
in the number of Lecturers exceeding 20% of the tenure track faculty (both
probationary and tenured) in that department or unit. Lectureships are
established at the request of the sponsoring department or unit based on approval
by a majority of the department's or unit's professorial and, if any, lecturer
faculty voting together. The head/chair
shall then prepare a proposal for approval by the dean of the
college/school and subsequently by the provost. The proposal shall
include (1) a demonstration of the need for such a
position, (2) a job
description, including the required academic
credentials, and
(3) identification of space and facilities needed for
the position.
The proposal shall be transmitted to the Dean of the college/school
by the department head/chair or unit head with his/her indication of approval
by the tenure track and lecturer faculty members in the department/unit for
establishment of the position.
Beginning with a national search, the hiring of Lecturer faculty will
follow normal university procedures for hiring tenure track faculty. Joint
appointments require the approval of all Deans involved.
Appointment
and Promotion in the Lecturer title series
A.
Introduction
To enable Auburn University more effectively to meet its
broad and varying lower-division instructional responsibilities while
maintaining full commitment to its research mission, a Lecturer title series
for appointments and promotions without tenure is established as hereafter
defined and described.
B.
Definition
The Lecturer title series is a professional series for full
time appointment of appropriately qualified individuals who contribute to the
university's academic mission through instruction of undergraduate students. Appointments
to the Lecturer title series are not intended to be used to replace tenure
track positions.
C.
Establishment of a Position
No new Lecturer
position will be proposed or established in any department or unit that would
result in the number of Lecturers exceeding 20% of the tenure track faculty
(both probationary and tenured) in that department or unit. . Lectureships are
established at the request of the sponsoring department or unit based on
approval by a majority of the department's or unit's professorial and, if any,
lecturer faculty voting together. The
head/chair shall then prepare a proposal for approval by the dean of the
college/school and subsequently by the provost. The proposal shall include (1) a demonstration of the need for
such a position, (2) a job description, including the required academic
credentials, and (3) identification of space and facilities needed for the
position.
The proposal shall be transmitted to the Dean of the
college/school by the department head/chair or unit head with his/her
indication of approval by the tenure track and lecturer faculty members in the
department/unit for establishment of the position. Beginning with a national
search, the hiring of Lecturer faculty will follow normal university procedures
for hiring tenure track faculty. Joint
appointments require the approval of all Deans involved.
Initial Appointment
The department head/chair or unit head, in consultation
with, and approval of, a majority of
the department or unit's tenure-track and Lecturer title faculty shall decide
upon the positions needed and the qualifications a successful candidate must
have. Together they shall develop a position description, including the
academic credentials required, to be supplied to the candidates. Beginning with
a national search, the hiring of Lecturer faculty will follow normal university
procedures for hiring tenure track faculty.
The department head/chair or unit head and the search
committee shall be guided by the Affirmative Action Office in framing an
advertisement for the position, in seeking permission to advertise, and in
recommending an initial appointment. Guidelines from the Affirmative Action
Office help ensure compliance with federal law and help ensure an open and fair
search.
When making recommendations for initial appointments in the
Lecturer title series, the department head/chair or unit head shall confer with
all available tenure-track and Lecturer title faculty of the department. He or
she shall then transmit a written summary of the reactions of these faculty
members along with appointment forms through the appropriate dean and/or
director, and to the Provost.
The initial letter of appointment shall clearly define the
length of the appointment, benefits, and duties/responsibilities. The offer
letter shall make clear that continuation of appointment is subject to the
availability of funds, the need for services, and satisfactory performance.
Letters containing promises not consistent with the Lecturer title procedures
are not enforceable unless authorized in writing by the President of Auburn
University.
Each initial appointment must be confirmed by the
appropriate department head/chair/unit head or dean in a written notice to the
appointee after proper administrative approvals have been obtained. This notice
shall include determination of prior service at this or other institutions to
be credited toward the years in rank for promotion. This letter constitutes the
faculty member's written terms of the initial employment.
Prior
Service
If a faculty member in the Lecturer title series has had
fewer than three years of full-time service in a faculty rank at this
institution or other institutions, he or she may request that two years, one
year, or none be credited toward the years in rank for promotion. If a faculty
member has had three or more years of full-time service in a faculty rank at
this or other institutions, he or she may request that three years be credited
toward the years in rank for promotion. The faculty member is required to make
one of these alternative requests, in writing, at the time of initial
appointment and, when approved, shall be binding. They shall be directed to the
department head/chair who will then make a recommendation to the dean and the
Provost.
D.
Academic Ranks, Titles, and Criteria
The academic ranks and related titles in the Lecturer title
series shall be: (1) Assistant Lecturer,
(2) Associate Lecturer, and (3) Senior Lecturer. Although it
is not feasible to specify exact criteria for evaluating the credentials of an
individual for appointment or promotion to any one
particular rank in the Lecturer title series, promotion depends primarily on
continuing excellence in instruction and length of service. Lecturers may be
considered for promotion to the rank of Associate Lecturer only after a minimum
of four years of service as an Assistant Lecturer and may be considered for
promotion to the rank of Senior Lecturer only after a minimum of five years of
service as an Associate Lecturer. Promotion to Associate Lecturer will result
in a promotion salary increment equal to the promotion salary increment for
promotion to Associate Professor, and promotion to Senior Lecturer will result
in a promotion salary increment equal to the promotion salary increment for
promotion to Full Professor.
E.
Performance Evaluation
All department heads/chairs and unit heads shall conduct at
least one yearly review before May 31 with each faculty member in the Lecturer
title series to evaluate his/her performance and to discuss
his/her future development. For the review, the faculty
member in the Lecturer title series will
provide a current vita and any supporting material the
head/chair or unit head or the faculty member in the Lecturer title series
deems appropriate.
Particular care shall be taken by the department head/chair
or unit head to relate the faculty member's job performance to the promotion
criteria set forth in this document. Significant achievements or deficiencies
which might enhance or impede the candidate's progress toward higher academic
rank shall be noted.
The head/chair or unit head shall prepare a written report
covering the major points of the conference. A copy of the report shall be
provided to the faculty member in the
Lecturer title series within a month of the conference. The faculty member
shall be asked to sign it as confirmation of having seen it. If the faculty
member does not agree with material in the report, he/she may write a
response to be appended to the report. One copy of the
signed report and response, if there is one, is to be retained for the faculty
member's departmental personnel file; another copy is to be given to the
faculty member. This report is to remain confidential, available only for the
use of the
concerned faculty member in the Lecturer title series and
any University officials who have supervisory responsibility over the faculty
member.
Each department
head/chair or unit head shall conduct a third year review of all its Assistant
Lecturers. This shall take place no later than 32 months after initial
appointment, normally before the end of the Spring semester of the faculty
member's third year. As with the annual review, the head/chair or unit head
shall request a current vita and any supporting material the head/chair or unit
head or the faculty member deems appropriate prior to the third year review.
The particular focus of this review is the faculty member's progress toward
achieving promotion to Associate Lecturer. The review, therefore, must address
the criteria for promotion set forth in this document. The head/chair or unit
head shall prepare a written report covering the findings of the review.
F.
Eligibility for Promotion
Lecturers may be considered for promotion to the rank of
Associate Lecturer only after a minimum of four years of service as an
Assistant Lecturer and may be considered for promotion to the rank of Senior
Lecturer only after a minimum of five years of service as an Associate Lecturer.
If an Assistant Lecturer has had
no prior service at this or another institution of higher education and has not
taken FMLA leave, he or she normally should be considered for promotion during
his or her fifth year of full-time service. A faculty member may request that
promotion consideration be deferred from the fifth to the sixth year without
prejudice. Consideration cannot be deferred beyond the sixth year however; a
candidate must be considered for promotion during his or her sixth year if he or
she has not been considered earlier and has not waived consideration.
A faculty member in the Lecturer title series on leave of
absence without pay need not count his/her leave time toward promotion.
However, if such a leave is professionally related, the faculty member may wish
to count that time and this should be arranged with the department head/chair
or unit head prior to the leave. A faculty member on leave without pay cannot
be a candidate for promotion while on leave. An Assistant Lecturer who qualified
for FMLA Leave may request a one-year extension of the maximum time a faculty
member in the Lecturer title series can hold the position of Assistant
Lecturer. Only two such extensions are allowed. Any request can be made at any
time during the appointment as an Assistant Lecturer. The faculty member in the
Lecturer title series will retain the position of full-time employee.
A faculty member in the Lecturer
title series who feels that he or she has not met the requirements for promotion
by the sixth year can waive consideration by stating, in writing, that he or
she does not wish to be considered by the department. In such a case, the
department head/chair must send the faculty member a letter of noncontinuation.
G.
Promotion Criteria and Considerations for Lecturers
Promotion is based on merit. A candidate for promotion should
have demonstrated excellence instruction, comparable to that of successful
candidates in the Lecturer title series,
in the same discipline, in the past five years. The criteria described
below shall be considered by the faculty in the evaluation of a candidate's
performance and achievement. The candidate's employment conditions and academic
assignments shall determine which criteria are most emphasized. Credit shall
also be given for contributions above and beyond specifically assigned duties.
Two items are of primary importance in the evaluation of
individuals for promotion in the Lecturer title series: (1) documented evidence
of excellence in instruction of undergraduate students and (2) collegiality, as
defined for tenure track faculty in the section entitled
"Collegiality" in Chapter 3 of this handbook. In addition, some
faculty may want to include documented evidence for (3) service to the
department or to the university, (4) outreach, or (5) publications in scholarly
journals.
Because of the difficulty of evaluating teaching
effectiveness, faculty members are urged to consider as many relevant measures
as possible. These include consideration of the candidate's knowledge of the
subject; the candidate's own statement of his or her teaching philosophy; the
quality of the candidate's teaching as indicated by peer and student
evaluations and teaching awards; performance of the candidate's students on
standardized tests or in subsequent classes; the candidate's contributions to
the academic advising of students; the candidate's development of new courses
and curricula or other indications of pedagogical creativity or innovation;
participation in professional organizations related to teaching in the candidate's field; and the
quality of any pedagogical material
published by the candidate. The
candidate should have a portfolio of sample materials from courses taught.
H.
Procedure for Promotion
1.
Participating Faculty
Faculty members eligible to participate in evaluation of the candidate
are tenure track faculty members (both probationary and tenured) and lecturers
of higher rank than the candidate.
2.
Initiation of the Process
The promotion process can be initiated by the candidate's
department head/chair or unit head or by the candidate. In the case of
promotion to Associate Lecturer, it is the joint responsibility of the
department head/chair and the faculty member to see that the promotion process
begins at the appropriate time. The steps delineated below are the procedures
to follow for promoting a faculty
member in the Lecturer title series.
Candidates and department heads/chairs or unit heads shall
supply information necessary for evaluation in the format outlined. This
information shall be made available first to eligible faculty members, namely
tenure track faculty members (both probationary and tenured) and lecturers of
higher rank, then to a
college/school committee (if appropriate), then to the dean and then to the
University Promotion and Tenure Committee. The information requested is
sufficiently detailed so that a candidate can be evaluated in terms of both
potential and achievement. Department heads/chairs and candidates who have
questions about material to be submitted should feel free to contact the
Provost.
3.
Information to Be Supplied by the Candidate
All lists (of positions held, courses taught, and, if applicable,
publications, etc.) should be in reverse chronological order with dates clearly
indicated.
a. A Standard Biographical Data sheet supplied by the Office
of the Provost.
b. A percent breakdown of the allocation of time and effort
as specified by the
terms of his/her contracts for the past three years.
c. A portfolio of sample materials from courses taught or
supervised.
d. A list of honors and awards. Include teaching awards, academic
honors, research and professional service awards, grants, internal support, or
election to professional societies, etc.
e. A list of academic contributions in accord with the
following outline. A
candidate should present his/her work as informatively and
accurately as possible.
1. Teaching
a. Actual courses taught for each semester of the past three
years. Indicate lecture/lab hours per week and enrollment
b. Listing of the candidate's
contributions to the academic advising of students.
c. Indications of
pedagogical creativity or innovation.
d. Grants received related to teaching.
e. Publications pertaining to
teaching. Include textbooks, manuals, and articles on pedagogy.
f. Participation in professional
organizations related to teaching in the candidate's field.
g. Other contributions to teaching.
h.
Statement of candidate's teaching philosophy and self-evaluation in terms of
his or her stated values. This should be no longer than one page.
i. Information, if available,
concerning performance of candidate's students in subsequent classes or on standardized tests.
2. Research, Service, or Outreach Contributions
If the candidate
wishes to submit documentation on research, service or outreach contributions,
he or she should use the same format used for these submissions required of the tenure track faculty as
described in this handbook in Chapter 3.
4.
Information to be Supplied by the Department Head/Chair or Unit Head
Information should be supplied in the area of teaching and,
if desired, in the areas of research/creative work, university outreach, and
service to the department or university.
a. Teaching
1. Student
evaluations. Include all student evaluations from one class per year for each
of the three preceding years as follows: For each class include a copy of the
questions asked, a summary indicating the spread of numerical responses to all
questions, and all student comments in unedited form. If the University form is
submitted, submit information on the required questions only and all student
comments in unedited form. Indicate the grade distribution in each of these
classes. If evaluations from more than three classes are available, the
candidate should be consulted about which evaluations are to be included. The
evaluations should reflect the candidate's teaching in the different kinds of
courses he or she is assigned to teach. The evaluation results should be
condensed into as few pages as possible.
2. Peer evaluations. Include
peer evaluations for one class for each of the three preceding years. These
should include assessment of syllabi, handouts, and exams, and assessment of
the candidate's conduct of the class. Reports based on team teaching are an
acceptable form of peer review.
b. Service
1. Confidential
letters invited by the candidate addressing his or her work on college and
University committees.
5.
Departmental Review
The candidate's
dossier (consisting of the information supplied by the candidate and the
information supplied by the department head/chair or unit head) and supporting
material shall be available for review exclusively by faculty in the department
eligible to vote on the candidate, namely all tenured faculty members and all
lecturers of higher rank than the
candidate. After the faculty has had time to review the dossier and supporting
material, the department head/chair shall convene a meeting of all eligible
faculty to discuss nomination of the candidate.
Confidentiality
and the right of faculty members to express their viewpoints openly without
fear of retaliation shall be the hallmarks of the discussion. Department or
unit deliberations shall be confidential to the extent permitted by law, as
shall all documents and testimonies involved at the various levels of the promotion process. If a recommendation
is forwarded, all copies of a
candidate's dossier shall be destroyed after the Promotion
and Tenure Committee's deliberations are completed except for the copy filed
permanently in the Office of the Provost. This copy is subject to legal review
only under certain conditions.
6. The
Department/Unit and Dean's Recommendation
After the candidate has made a presentation of his or her credentials
if he or she so wishes, and after the faculty eligible to vote have had time to
discuss the candidate's qualifications in a closed meeting, a secret ballot
shall be taken at the meeting of eligible faculty to determine the final
recommendation of the faculty. Tenured faculty members and Lecturers of higher
rank are eligible to vote on the promotion of Lecturers. Faculty members may
participate in the promotion recommendation in one of the following ways:
a. present and voting,
b. present and abstaining,
c. absent but submitting a written
vote prior to the meeting, or
d. absent and not voting (This
response does not count as part of the total vote.).
The department
head/chair or unit head shall vote by secret ballot with the faculty.
Any other faculty member serving as an administrator who has an official vote
on the candidate at a higher administrative level shall excuse himself or
herself at the department/unit level. Faculty members who serve in an advisory
capacity at the school, college, or University level may vote at the
department/unit level but at higher levels shall excuse themselves from
decisions on candidates from their departments. Immediate family members shall
excuse themselves from voting.
The department head/chair or unit head shall announce the
vote at the meeting. The vote shall be transmitted itemized as a, b, c, and d
as listed above in writing, first to the dean of the candidate's college or
school and the College Committee, then to the Promotion and Tenure Committee
along with the other information requested in this document.
The department head/chair or unit head and the dean shall
communicate the department/unit's and the dean's/College Committee's
recommendations respectively to the candidate so that the candidate can make an
informed decision about whether or not to continue with the process of seeking
promotion. If the candidate wishes to continue the process despite a negative
recommendation, the department head/chair and dean shall honor the candidate's
request.
The department head/chair and the dean shall provide a
written evaluation of the candidate and a recommendation for or against
promotion. Faculty members too should be encouraged to write letters explaining
why they do or do not favor promotion. Where there are fewer than three faculty
members in a department or unit who are eligible to write letters of
evaluation, the head/chair may ask for letters from faculty members in other
departments who have knowledge of the candidate's professional performance.
Letters should address collegiality and the effectiveness of the candidate's
performance in the instruction of undergraduate students, with consideration
given to research, service or outreach when applicable.
Faculty should bear in mind that letters to the Promotion
and Tenure Committee are an important source of information for the Committee.
Letters can help the Committee to make an informed judgment about the
candidate's collegiality by addressing the candidate's performance of his or
her duties within a department. Letters can also help the Committee, whose
members may not come from the candidate's field, understand the significance of
the candidate's work and make
a fair appraisal of it. Normally, evaluative letters should
be addressed to the department head/chair or unit head; however, such letters
may be submitted directly to the dean/College Committee or to the Promotion and
Tenure Committee. Department head/chairs and deans shall submit all letters of
evaluation that are submitted to them.
7.
Submission of the Candidate's Dossier
The dossier should present the information clearly and
legibly. A 12-point font and one inch margins are required. Tabs should be
placed to mark the sections.
Fifteen copies of each dossier and evaluative letters shall
be submitted for each candidate. Copies must be of good quality. These copies
shall be sent to the candidate's dean to be evaluated at that level and then
sent on to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. These copies are to be collated
into complete packets, each fastened with a Spring clip, each section arranged
with tabs as
follows:
a. Standard biographical data
sheet.
b. Information supplied by the
candidate.
c. Information supplied by the
department head/chair or unit head.
d. Evaluations and recommendations
from:
1. the
dean,
2. the
department head/chair or unit head, and
3. faculty
members
8.
Schedule
Nominations for promotion shall be transmitted to Promotion
and Tenure Committee in December of each year. The specific date shall be
announced in the annual call for nominations from the Provost. The candidate's
dean shall request material early enough to make a recommendation to be
forwarded with the candidate's dossier in December.
9.
University Level Review and Recommendation and Notification of the Candidate
The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall review each
candidate's dossier. Should
additional material be needed, the committee shall contact
the candidate's department head/chair or unit head or dean. The committee shall
vote by secret ballot whether or not to recommend the candidate for promotion.
Deliberations of the Committee and the Committee's vote shall remain
confidential. The Committee shall send its recommendation along with the
candidate's dossier to the President for final action.
When the President approves a recommendation for promotion,
the candidate shall be notified in writing by the President, with copies of the
notification to the department head/chair or unit head, dean, and Provost. The
candidate shall receive a copy of the Personnel Action Form authorizing the
change in rank. When the President does not approve a candidate's
recommendation for promotion, the candidate shall be notified in writing by the
President. Copies of the notification shall also go to the department
head/chair or unit head and dean. If the candidate so requests, he/she shall be
informed of the numerical vote and provided with a written statement of reasons
why the recommendation was not approved. If the President overrules a
recommendation, he/she shall inform the Promotion and Tenure Committee in
writing within a month's time of the overruling and the reasons for it.
Candidates considered for promotion on the schedule noted above shall be
notified of the decision no later than the end of Spring semester. A list of
newly promoted faculty shall be made public by the end of summer term.
If, at the beginning of
his or her sixth year, a lecturer has not yet been promoted to Associate
Lecturer, the department head/chair
shall give the candidate a twelve month's notice of noncontinuation. Such a
candidate may be considered for promotion during the sixth year of service, but
this consideration does not invalidate the noncontinuation notice unless the
promotion is granted. In no case shall a candidate be considered for promotion
to Associate Lecturer by the Promotion and Tenure Committee more than two
times.
I. Appeal
of Promotion Decisions
Grounds for appeal exist when, in the opinion of the
candidate, one or more of the following occurred:
1. The denial of promotion resulted from the fact that all
evidence in support of the candidate was not presented at the time of the
original consideration.
2. The denial resulted from procedural irregularities
concerning advisement and periodic review or a failure to follow promotion
procedures of the department, college, school, or University.
3. The denial was based significantly on considerations
violative of academic freedom.
4. The denial was based significantly on discrimination with
respect to race, sex, religion, national origin, age, physical handicap,
marital status, or sexual orientation.
A faculty member who contends unjust denial of promotion may
choose to discuss the reasons for denial and the appeals process with the
Provost. Appeals should be made in writing to the Provost through the
department head/chair or unit head and dean within 14 calendar days of the date
of the faculty member's receipt of written notification of denial.
If the faculty member bases his/her appeal on alleged
violation of academic freedom or discrimination, the appeal must include a
statement of the grounds on which the allegation is based and evidence to
support his/her case. If the faculty member succeeds in establishing a prima
facie case, it is incumbent upon those who made the decision against
continuation to come forward with evidence in support of their decision.
Statistical evidence of discrimination may be used by the candidate in establishing
a prima facie case.
The Provost shall respond promptly to the faculty member's
appeal by forming an Appeals Committee and setting the date, time, and place
for the hearing of the appeal.
The Appeals Committee shall be comprised of the following:
1. Current members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee,
and
2. Three additional faculty members who have recently served
on the Promotion and Tenure Committee, none from the appealer's department.
Each year the Provost will appoint these additional members and one alternate,
who will substitute for one of the additional members if an appealer is from
his/her department.
3. At least one member of the Appeals Committee shall be a
faculty member of higher rank in the Lecturer title series , whether or not she
or he has recently served on the Promotion and Tenure Committee, when the
appealer is a faculty member in the Lecturer title series.
After the merit of the appeal has been judged, the
recommendations of the Appeals Committee and all supporting documents shall be
submitted to the Provost who will submit the body of the material to the
President for a final decision.
In the appellate process, appeals must be taken and
decisions rendered so as to prevent postponing a promotion decision to the next
year.
J. Terms
and Continuation of Appointment
Although it has been the custom of the University for
faculty appointments to be continued by mutual commitment and understanding
rather than by formal contracts, faculty in the Lecturer title series will be appointed
with written contracts. The following principles outline the policy on
continuation of the contract for faculty members in the Lecturer title series.
An Assistant Lecturer shall be appointed with a one year
contract that may be renewed annually but not to exceed six years. An Assistant
Lecturer is therefore limited to six years under contract. An Associate
Lecturer shall be appointed with a two
year contract that may be renewed biennially without limitation. A Senior
Lecturer shall be appointed with a
three year contract that may be renewed triennially without limitation. A
contract year shall be understood to mean, in this chapter, either a 9 month
academic year or a 12 month calendar year.
The initial
letter of appointment shall clearly define the length of the appointment,
benefits, and duties/responsibilities. The offer letter shall make clear that
continuation of appointment is subject to the availability of funds, the need
for services, and satisfactory performance. Letters containing promises not
consistent with the lecturer title procedures are not enforceable unless
authorized in writing by the President of Auburn University.
K.
Dismissal before completion of contract
Termination of a faculty member in the Lecturer title series
during the contract term, shall be effected by the University only for adequate
cause. Adequate cause for a dismissal shall be related, directly and
substantially, to the fitness of faculty members in the Lecturer title series
in their professional capacities as teachers. Dismissal shall not be used to
restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights
of American citizens. Section "16. Dismissal" in Chapter 3 of this
handbook provides that "Rights of due process shall also apply to a
non-tenured faculty member dismissed before completion of his or her
contractual term." This section
of Chapter 3 also contains a
description of the due process.
L.
Noncontinuation of Appointment (non-renewal of contract)
Normally, the termination of an Associate Lecturer or a
Senior Lecturer would be effected by the university only for adequate cause,
unprofessional conduct, insufficient
funding or insufficient enrollment.
Appointments in the Lecturer title series shall be understood to provide
all privileges of academic freedom including protection from arbitrary
non-continuation. If a faculty member in the Lecturer title
series whose contract is not to be
renewed so requests, he or she shall be provided with a written statement of
reason why the contract is not to be renewed. In order to insure that
noncontinuation is not used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of
academic freedom, an employee in the Lecturer title series is afforded the
opportunity to appeal his/her noncontinuation to the Faculty Grievance
Committee.
Lecturers who are not to be continued shall receive advance
notice of non-continuation as early as possible but at least by January 15
of the year of their current contract.
If, at the beginning of his
or her sixth year, a lecturer has not yet been promoted to Associate
Lecturer, the department head/chair
shall give the candidate a twelve month's notice of noncontinuation. Such a
candidate may be considered for promotion during the sixth year of service, but
this consideration does not invalidate the noncontinuation notice unless the
promotion is granted. In no case shall a candidate be considered for promotion
to Associate Lecturer by the Promotion and Tenure Committee more than two
times.
M.
Graduate Faculty
A faculty member in the Lecturer title series is not
eligible for membership on the Graduate Faculty.
N.
Benefits
A faculty member on appointment in the Lecturer title series
is eligible for all benefits of tenure-track faculty, as specified in the Faculty
Handbook or other applicable University policies, except tenure and
professional improvement leave.
O.
University Membership
A faculty member in the Lecturer title series shall be
eligible to vote on all faculty matters, including the promotion of a Lecturer
of lower rank or the appointment of a new Lecturer, but excluding the
appointment, tenure or promotion of a tenure track faculty member. A
faculty member in the Lecturer title series may vote on and/or be
elected the department's representative in the University Senate.
P. Change
from Non Tenure Track Lecturer Title Series to
Tenure Track Faculty
If the appointment of a faculty member is changed from the
Lecturer title series to tenure track faculty through normal, faculty approved,
tenure track hiring, then some years of
service while on appointment in the Lecturer title series, or none, will be as
credited toward the probationary period for tenure. If a faculty member has had
fewer than three years of full-time service in a faculty rank at this
institution or other institutions, he or she may request that two years, one
year, or none be credited toward the probationary period for tenure. If a
faculty member has had three or more years of
full-time service in a faculty rank at this or other institutions, he or
she may request that three years be credited toward the probationary period for
tenure. At the time of initial appointment to the tenure track faculty, the
faculty member is required to make one of these alternative requests in writing
and, when approved, this written request shall be binding. The request shall be
directed to the department head/chair who will then make a recommendation to
the dean and the Provost.
[end of report]
Our full-time instructors are
not allowed to be full-time for very many years as most of you know. After a
few years they are forced to go part-time to avoid tenure. Our committee felt
that we could provide better positions than that, positions that mimic
positions at other universities and presumably attract better people to these
positions. These positions are supposed to not have any research component;
they are for teaching only. There is also no tenure associated with these
positions. In each particular department, the faculty can decide—up to 20% of
the tenure-track faculty if they want to institute positions of this type. If
this proposal is approved, there is no suggestion that all instructors will
immediately transfer to become lecturers. Each department will decide the number
of positions like this that they want.
Assistant lecturers have six
one-year contracts. Then they must be promoted or they are no longer lecturers.
If they are promoted, then they become associate lecturers and can have
two-year contracts indefinitely. If promoted again, they get renewable
three-year contracts indefinitely.
The flexibility component
comes in when it is time to renew the contract and the department can decide
that the department doesn’t have enough money, so that person’s contract would
not be renewed. Or they can decide that the enrollment has dropped enough so
that renewal of contract is not justified. This is not true with tenure-track
faculty. During the contract, it is as difficult to fire a lecturer as it is a
tenure-track person. The lecturer is safe during the contract.
Steve Knowlton, Physics: I would like to state
my strong objection to this proposal. I really think it is going to weaken
academic programs. I did read your proposal and I recognize that you are trying
to protect the rights of instructors. But when I read it, I thought it might
have come from the Board of Trustees because it is essentially a defacto
elimination of tenure. You are going to take tenure-track faculty members and
substitute non-tenure track lecturers for them. Secondly, I think this proposal
really attacks the nature of what we do as professors. We are here as teachers
and scholars. We accept the fact that as scholars, we are better teachers, and
as teachers, we are better scholars. This proposal separates those two
functions and basically says it is not important if an undergraduate ever has a
real professor. In my department, we do lots of service teaching for classes
outside of our curriculum, and within our college we have the highest level
outside funding. You would think it would be easy to have undergraduate classes
taught by lecturers. But we as a department feel that teaching undergraduates
is one of our primary missions. I don’t like that this proposal suggests that
undergraduates are not good enough to be taught by real professors. This
University can survive proration, the Board of Trustees, and maybe even the
Peaks of Excellence program, but it will not survive a faculty that espouses a
degradation of academic excellence, that accepts elimination of tenure, or that
acknowledges that teaching and research are best separate.
Dr. Heath: No position of this type will be initiated unless the
faculty of that department decides that’s what they want. Secondly, there
certainly was never any intention of replacing tenure positions with lecturer
positions. The intention was for these positions to perhaps replace instructor
positions held by grad students, for example, who might be teaching many labs.
Secondly, I think everyone in this room would agree that we would like to have
every position tenure-track and every class taught by scholars, but that is not
how it is. This is an attempt to make how it is better.
Michael Watkins, Philosophy: I
agree with my colleague’s solutions, but I disagree with a good deal that he
said early on. I think the document recognizes some very serious problems on
campus. The document is sensitive those issues and is probably better than
anything that the BOT could produce. Nonetheless I will vote against it. In the
Philosophy Department, we have 11 tenure-track faculty and eight full-time
instructors. These are just rotating positions. I think that the AAUP would
count this as consistent with their rules is amazing. What we have are
permanent non-tenure track positions temporarily filled by people. Nonetheless,
I do not see the problem going away, but everyone in the Philosophy Department
that I have spoken with (and I have spoken with half of the instructors and
every tenure-track faculty member) is opposed to this. I think this is as good
as this kind of thing will get and I don’t think we should approve it. I think
we should give up on the non-tenure track option. One of the things that
bothers us in the Philosophy Department is that you are putting a cap on how
many lecturers you can have. There is not a cap on how many non-tenure track
faculty you can have. So, instead of having a two-tier system, which is what we
have now, we are going to have a three-tier system. I just don’t see that as
improvement. The Philosophy Department uses temporary faculty percentage-wise
about as much as anyone, except perhaps the English Department.
George Crandell, English Department Head: I
would like to speak in opposition to this motion. First, I think it is at odds
with the guidelines that state that tenure-track positions should be the norm.
It is also at odds with our Faculty Handbook in terms of after seven
years this is a way of getting around the tenure issue. If you think this
position would attract better people, I don’t think it would. Research is an
important component of our profession as well as teaching and the people in our
profession who are seeking a position who see a teaching position as less
desirable than one that includes research and the pursuit of knowledge. I don’t
think it would aid in attracting new people or the quality of people we want as
teachers at Auburn University. When this was brought up the English Department
faculty was opposed to it; they still are.
Judy Sheppard, AAUP President: There
are some situations where AAUP does approve something like this, but I think
that considering why we grant tenure in general there is a reason why we do
that. I am one of those people who was a non-tenure track instructor in the
English Department for five years. I think we all know that there is a real
problem. I have friends who are PhD’s and excellent teachers who do a lot of
research but are not fortunate enough to get one of these tenure-track slots. I
would love to see them get better working conditions. This is just such a
wonderful-intentioned effort, but I think it would be a bad practice.
Marcia Boosinger, Steering Committee: I
am not speaking for or against because this has very little impact on the unit
I am from. How is this like or not like the initial research tracks that we
approved with very little discussion in
the last year. These do not have tenure either but allow faculty to have major
responsibilities. As I understand it, research positions are normally teachers
in a clinical setting, so I am confused as to the concern here and I am
wondering if this is a matter of “it is okay for some departments if they
approve this, but not in my department, please.” I don’t understand, is there a
big difference between those tracks that I am missing?
Dr. Heath: No, except that we have a little more affection for
the academic training. Funny you should ask because we patterned this after the
research track so that it would resemble the clinical instructors.
Dr. Boosinger: It seems to be discrimination
to me.
Dr. Heath: At present,
that is the case.
The motion to accept the
recommendations of the committee failed to pass with a hand count of 13 yes, 29
no, and 8 abstaining.
This work was actually done
last Spring and would have been brought forward at that time, but we were under
a mandate to make sure our calendar meshes as closely as possible with the
calendar from AUM and they did their work during the summer. So, we have
checked it over and are in very close agreement with them.
We are only going to be
working on the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 Calendar at this time. We are holding
off presenting a proposed Summer 2003 Calendar until work by another committee,
which is looking at how the two five-week semesters and ten-week semester
worked over all, is finished. Then we should have a Summer 2003 proposal for
you. I think the biggest thing most of you will want to see on this is that
even though we were very aware of how the Senate voted last Fall on the Fall
2001 calendar relative to a mid-term break during Fall versus a full week at
Thanksgiving, we have a member of the Student Government Association who is a
member of the Calendar and Schedules Committee that brought news to us that the
student body feels very strongly that they would like to have a midterm break
during Fall and less time during Thanksgiving. Due to the fact this year that
Thanksgiving Falls very late on Nov. 28 and Labor Day comes early, they felt
very strongly that they wanted a break in between that period, so we presented
their requests to you.
We have fairly even weeks.
There are only three weeks in which there are less than five class days, 74
class days overall with equal numbers of Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and
Friday classes (15 each of those), and then 14 Monday classes due to the Labor
Day holiday. That is the Fall proposal.
For Spring semester, classes
begin on Wednesday, so we are going to end up with some broken up weeks. There
are 75 class days in this calendar, and equal numbers of Tuesday, Thursday, and
Friday classes (15 each), 16 Wednesdays, and 14 Mondays. Again, as in the Fall
calendar, there are three weeks that would have less than five full days in the
week, Monday-Friday. That would be the first week when the Wednesday beginning,
the third day which is MLK week, and the last week of classes.
Michael Watkins, Philosophy: When
we ask students if they want a two-day semester break, a week at Thanksgiving,
a five-day Spring break, and a four-day study break between classes and exams
at the end of the year, are we asking them if they want that and also telling
them that we are taking away from them three weeks of their summer? Do they
realize that this is a trade-off? It seems to me that the academic year keeps
getting expanded. I am curious as to whether this is something they really
want.
Dr. Molt: I wish I had an answer
for you, but I do not.
Dr. Watkins: It is more
of a comment that a question.
Ford Laumer, Marketing (substitute): Could
you explain why we begin Spring semester on a Wednesday, as opposed to a
Monday, when we could have a full week? Considering that the first and previous
Tuesday still give summer workdays before the semester starts, in light of the
fact that we used to start classes on Jan 2 or 3. It seems to me that to have a
full week to start out with would be more logical.
Dr. Molt: We talked about that quite a bit and part of the
situation goes to trying to let those departments that have to train
instructors or get people up to speed get people up to speed in the time period
before we bring people in. That is part of that rationale for bumping it back.
This fits very closely with what our other organizations and institutions tend
to be doing, rather than going right back after the New Years holiday.
Actually, we will be beginning a little earlier than we did this past Spring,
which was the 10th of January.
Bob Locy, Biological Sciences: I
have the same problem with this that I had last year. This will reduce our
laboratory classes where we have no opportunity to set up previous week’s
laboratory, so we are taking out three weeks of laboratories and reducing us to
12 weeks of labs. There is no way with
the facilities we have that we can make up these labs. If you take the Fall
break and consolidate it with the Thanksgiving break, they will still get their
break. They will just have to take it a little later and we can still have 14
weeks of instruction. We literally lose two weeks of instruction with that
calendar. In light of that, I would like to move to eliminate the Fall break
and consolidate it with the break at
Thanksgiving.
Dr. Molt: I think that we have to finish taking
questions. Then Jim will take any motions for changes.
To give you folks feedback
from the Calendar and Schedules Committee, we are very confident of that fact.
We are also trying to listen to all the different constituencies involved, and
we had a very vocal mandate from the SGA. That is why we went this way.
Dr. Locy: We teach biology labs from 8 in the morning until 8
at night, so evening makeup labs are not even a possibility for us.
Herb Rotfeld, Steering Committee: As
long as we are mentioning it, which is what drove our discussion last year, all
days are not equal, not just for labs. We just finished a holiday weekend and a
lot of you here have Monday-Wednesday classes, how many of you had a drop in
attendance and we are only in the second week? How many of you had a drop in
attendance on Friday? How many of you had a drop in attendance today? How many
of us will feel confident enough to have a pop quiz the Wednesday after a Fall
break?
Randy Pipes, Counseling and Counseling
Psychology: How do the starting dates of this proposed calendar
compare to this year and the year before?
Dr. Molt: The starting date for Fall is almost identical. We
did orientation on Thursday, August 16 and classes started the 20th.
I don’t remember what it was in the Spring. Graduation for this Fall is on a
Saturday and there are no days between exams and graduation. This Spring there
are two days.
Barbara Struempler, Chair-Elect: Just
for clarification, for the study days, December 6-7, should be December 7-8, if
you want these days to be Saturday and Sunday.
Dr. Molt: Yes, the calendar is supposed to read December 7-8
for Study/Reading Days.
Dr. Bradley: I would like to handle this by voting on a motion to
adopt both of these calendars, and if there are amendments, let’s talk about
Fall semester first and vote on it, then move on to Spring semester. So, we
begin with a motion to adopt both of these calendars. Is there any discussion
on Fall semester? If anyone wants to make amendments, let’s consider Fall
semester first.
Bob Locy, Biological Sciences: I
move to amend the Fall semester schedule to eliminate the Fall semester break
and add those two days to the beginning of Thanksgiving break.
The
move to amend was seconded.
The
motion to amend the calendar was passed by a unanimous voice vote.
There were no other motions
for amendments to the Fall semester or Spring semester calendars.
The Fall semester calendar
as amended and Spring semester calendar were approved by a unanimous voice
vote.
[revised
calendar]
Calendar for Fall 2002- Spring 2003 Semesters
Orientation for New Students August 16 (Friday)
Classes begin August 19 (Monday)
Labor Day Holiday September 2 (Monday)
Mid-Semester (37th Day) October
9 (Wednesday)
Thanksgiving
Holidays November
25-December 1 (Monday-Sunday)
Classes End December 6 (Friday)
Study/Reading Days December 7-8
(Saturday-Sunday)
Final Exam Period December
9-13 (Monday-Friday)
Graduation December 16 (Monday)
Orientation for New Students January 7 (Tuesday)
Classes begin January 8 (Wednesday)
M. L. King Holiday January 20 (Monday)
Mid-Semester February 28 (Friday)
Spring Break March 24-28
(Monday-Friday)
Classes End April 30 (Wednesday)
Study/Reading Days May 1-2 (Thursday-Friday)
Final Exam
Period May
3, 5-8 (Saturday, Monday-Thursday)
Graduation May 10 (Saturday)
[end
of calendar]
Information Items
Sexual Assault Awareness Week, September 4-7 – Dr.
Elizabeth Mueller, Safe Harbor Women’s Center
Adjournment