Motions (from the minutes) passed by the Faculty Senate 2001-2002

 

Kathleen Kennedy, President

 

 

SUBJECT

DESCRIPTION

DATE

 

Revised Faculty Grievance Procedure  Kennedy brought a motion, seconded by Tom Read, to adopt an addition to Bylaw 7.7. entitled “The Ombudsman” which will eliminate the need for paragraph 3b of the new grievance procedure, which passed unanimously. 5/20/02
Revised Faculty Grievance Procedure Kenndy brought a motion, seconded by Purdy to adopt changes to Section IV.C. of the draft, essentially regarding timeline procedure, which passed. 5/20/02
Outstanding Service Resolution 

2002-2004 Senate President John Purdy expressed appreciation to Kathleen Kennedy, and then to Chris Suczek and Vicki Hamblin who have completed their term on the Executive Council.  Purdy made a motion, seconded by Tom Read, to adopt the following resolution of the Senate which passed unanimously. 

A Resolution of the Faculty Senate of Western Washington University for the Outstanding Service

of  Kathleen Kennedy

“WHEREAS, Kathleen Kennedy has served as Western Washington University’s Faculty Senate President during the 2001-2002 academic year; and,

“WHEREAS, Kathleen Kennedy has proven to be a highly committed leader who has served the faculty dutifully, with humor and dedication, directing the Senate’s deliberations on crucial and difficult issues throughout the 2001-2002 academic year; and

“WHEREAS, the members of the Faculty Senate of Western Washington University are grateful for her dedication to seeking the greatest possible input from the faculty, and for making the Faculty Senate of Western Washington University such a force for effective faculty governance,

“BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, by the Faculty Senate of Western Washington University at its regular meeting of May 20, 2002, that Kathleen Kennedy be and hereby is honored for his outstanding service as Faculty Senate President from June 24, 2001 to June 25, 2002.”

 

5/20/02
Second Vote on FAST Items

The Senate conducted a second vote on the following items previously voted on and published in FAST:

§         A motion to revise the charge of the Senate Legislative Committee, which passed.

§         A motion to revise Bylaws 7.1.3, 7.1.4, and 12.3, which passed.

§         A motion to approve the “Policy and Procedural Guidelines for Misconduct in Research and Scholarship” (Appendix G of the Faculty Handbook)” which passed unanimously, and included a preamble that the changes have been made to comply with Federal guidelines.

 

5/6/02
Faculty Affairs Requests Faculty Vote on the Provost’s Plan

The Faculty Affairs Council (the policy-making committee of the College of Arts & Sciences) forwarded a request to the Senate via Tom Read.  A motion supporting the request was made by Tom Read and seconded by Bill Lyne.  The motion asked the Senate to conduct an immediate vote of the Faculty which is to read as follows:

Question:  Do you support the Provost’s Plan for restructuring the University?

The Plan proposes 1) the creation of a College of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities and the elimination of the College of Fine and Performing Arts; and 2) the creation of a College of Science and Technology.  The proposal can be viewed at: http://www.acadweb.wwu.edu/senate/ABProposal040902.htm

YES______                 NO_______              ABSTAIN______”

The motion passed unanimously (2 abstentions).  Ballot results will be made available to the University Planning Council and the Academic Coordinating commission before these committees make final recommendations to the Provost.

 

5/6/02
Academic Freedom

§         James Loucky made a motion, seconded by Bill Lyne, to support a resolution on academic freedom, the text of which follows:

WHEREAS, times of national crisis may lead governments to institute measures of security that include denial of exercise of voice, movement, and assembly;

WHEREAS, universities have a set of responsibilities for which intellectual freedom is the significant defining feature; and

WHEREAS, the transformative knowledge that we encourage is grounded in critical inquiry, including questioning and criticism of leaders, laws and policy;

THEREFORE, the Faculty Senate of Western Washington University reaffirms our unequivocal commitment to, and active support of, the free expression of opinion and critique in classroom discussions, curricular decisions, and other teaching and scholarly pursuits.

 The Faculty Senate unanimously passed the motion.   Provost Bodman expressed a shared commitment of the administration to the ideas expressed in the Senate resolution supporting academic freedom.

 

5/6/02
College Restructuring Lyne, seconded by Brad Johnson, moved that recommendations be delayed until the faculty has been satisfied that their voice has been heard.  Thorndike, seconded by James Loucky, made a motion to table discussion on the delay until University President Karen Morse and Provost Bodman can negotiate with the Board of Trustees and bring the results of the discussion to the next Senate meeting, which passed.

 

4/22/02
College Restructuring A motion was made by Bill Lyne, seconded by James Loucky to accept the document from the College of Fine and Performing Arts, and further, that consideration of restructuring be extended to end of fall quarter 2002.   Members proposed to separate the question, and the motion was restated by Sara Weir as follows:  to support the petition we have received and to support the College of Fine and Performing Arts and to further support of the concerns they have expressed“ which passed.  Chris Suczek proposed discussing the CFPA proposal separately from the split-up of CAS. 

 

4/22/02
Policy and Procedural Guidelines for Misconduct in Research and Scholarship

(Revisions to Appendix G of the Faculty Handbook).  Members reviewed the document and the changes proposed by Dean Ghali and brought forward from the Executive Council at a previous meeting.  A motion by Robert Thorndike, seconded by Steve Ross, passed to amend the policy so that the last bulleted item on page 1 is moved to a new item 4 in part A and modified to read as follows:

“4.            Research misconduct does not include honest errors, honest differences of opinion, or differences in interpretation or judgments of data.”

The motion to approve the Policy and Procedural Guidelines for Misconduct in Research and Scholarship as revised passed unanimously, to be printed with a preamble that the changes have been made to comply with federal guidelines. The document will go to FAST for publication to all faculty.

 

4/22/02
Changes to Bylaw 7.1 and 12.3

Senators then moved to approve changes to Bylaw 7.1 and 12.3 of the Handbook, which passed.  The text follows (deletions struck through, new material underlined):

 

“Bylaw 7.1 Appointments and Elections Committee Officer.  In addition to its chair, who sits on The Appointments and Elections Officer sits on the Faculty Senate Executive Council. The Appointments and Elections Committee consists of two voting Faculty Senate members, who are appointed by the Senate at the first meeting after the Faculty Senate elections; they serve S/he serves a one–year renewable term and reports to the Executive Council.  The Appointments and Elections Committee Officer recruits. . . (unchanged). The Appointments and Elections Committee Officer may make interim appointments (less than 1 year) to Faculty Senate committees subject to review and approval of the Senate.

 

“BL 7.1.3:  The President pro tem … Secretary, Chair of the Appointments and Elections Committee Officer, and one member. . . (unchanged).

 

“BL 7.1.4:  The Appointments and Elections Committee Officer shall review …. When it is determined to be necessary, the Appointments and Elections Committee Officer shall recommend to the Faculty Senate …(unchanged)

 

“BL 12.3:   Ineligibility. Candidates … by the Elections and Appointments Committee Officer, and unless proof of. . .” (unchanged).

 

4/22/02
Revisions to Bylaws 12.5.4, 12.1, and 12.4.4 Hamblin conducted a second vote on revisions (published in FAST 4/25/02) to Bylaws 12.5.4, 12.1, and 12.4.4 which passed.

 

4/22/02
Charge to Senate Legislative Committee – Executive Council Motion

Jeff Newcomer presented a motion forwarded and seconded from the Senate Executive Council to revise the charge of the Senate Legislative Committee as follows:

“BL7.2.1          The Senate Legislative Committee shall consist of seven (7) faculty members.   Three shall be elected by the Faculty Senate from persons nominated by the Executive Council of the Faculty Senate and by members of the Faculty Senate, one member of the Academic Coordinating Commission, one member of the Salary and Welfare Committee, one member of the University Planning Council, each appointed by their respective committees for a one year term, and the President-elect of the Faculty Senate, who shall serve as a member of the Senate Legislative Committee, ex officio.  The term of office of the elected members shall be three years with one member to be elected in the Spring Quarter of each year.  Members shall be eligible for reelection.

 

“BL7.2.6 The Committee shall meet at least once per quarter while the Legislature is not in session, and at least once per month while the Legislature is in session.  Copies of the minutes of all meetings shall be forwarded to the Senate for review within one month of the meeting.”

 

Newcomer presented the rationale for the changes, which have been reviewed by the chairs of Senate standing committees. The purpose of the change (BL7.2.1) is to improve the flow of information to and from the Faculty Legislative Representative and the rest of the faculty governance structure by creating formal links between the committees.  The purpose of the addition (BL7.2.6) is to formalize expectations for meetings of the committee.  

The motion to change the charge passed unanimously.  The material will now be published in FAST.

 

4/22/02
Revision to Motion #3 from the February 25, 2002 Document

A motion made by Kathleen Kennedy, seconded by Kevin Leonard, to approve the original language of the draft was passed (text follows with struck-through deletions, and italicized additions):

The President of the University and the Faculty Senate President shall select the

Hearing Officer, who shall serve as a non-voting presiding officer of the Hearing

Panel.

The Hearing Officer [may or may not be a faculty member] should normally be

a faculty member.  He or she should have but is not required to have, an

understanding of legal or grievance procedures.

 

Robert Thorndike, seconded by John Purdy, made a motion to add the following text to the above draft which passed.:

“Each party of the grievance may challenge the Hearing Officer for prejudice.  Such challenge must be made to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee Council within three working days of the designation of the Hearing Officer.

“The Faculty Senate Executive Committee Council shall make a ruling on the challenge at its next regularly scheduled meeting.  To establish prejudice, the party must provide evidence sufficient to show that the Hearing Officer will be unable to exercise his or her functions impartially in the particular case.”

 

 

4/8/02
Revised Faculty Grievance Procedure

MOTION #4 and 5:  Chris Suczek moved, seconded by Rob Stoops, to accept motions 4 and 5 together -- in the first case (motion 4) that the Faculty Senate omit the following language from section B3b:

            “The Ombudsman shall report to the Faculty Senate annually on disputes handled by the Standing Committee.  These reports shall maintain the confidentiality of the complainant, respondent(s), and the specifics of the case.”

And in the second case (motion 5) that the Faculty Senate add the following language to the end of BL7.7: 

“Faculty Standing Committee on Grievance and Sanctions.”  “The chair of the Faculty Standing Committee on Grievance and Sanctions shall report to the Faculty Senate annually on disputes handled by the Standing Committee.  These reports shall maintain the confidentiality of the complainant, respondent(s), and the specifics of the case.”

 

After a friendly amendment by John Purdy to capitalize “standing committee” throughout, the motion passed. 

 

4/8/02
Revised Faculty Grievance Procedure

MOTION #3:  Kathleen Kennedy moved, seconded by John Purdy, that the Faculty Senate accept the following changes to the language of the Faculty Grievance Procedure 1/16/2000 Draft.  All changes refer to section IV. 

              “That the language in B.4.a. be changed to “Administrative resolution by the department chair will…”

The motion passed.
4/8/02
Revised Faculty Grievance Procedure

MOTION #2:  Kathleen Kennedy made a motion, seconded by Robert Thorndike, that the Faculty Senate accept the following changes to the Faculty Grievance Procedure 1/16/2000 Draft.  All changes refer to section IV:

“That the language in B.1.b be changed to: “the complaint shall state the basis of the grievance, identify the person or persons whose actions are the subject of the grievance (respondent) and set forth facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the standards for a grievance set forth in the Faculty Handbook Appendix E…”

The motion passed.

4/8/02
Revised Faculty Grievance Procedure

Senators reviewed motions presented by Kathleen Kennedy, seconded by Robert Thorndike to accept the following language changes to the Faculty Grievance Procedure 1/16/2001 Draft (section IV):

MOTION #1

A motion was made by Chris Suczek, seconded by John Purdy, to separate out paragraph item 2 which passed unanimously.  The text follows:  That the language in B.1.c. be changed to: “If the complaint is not resolved with the help of the ombudsman (see 3. below) or administratively (see 4. below), the complainant shall provide the evidentiary basis for the determination as to whether a grievable action has occurred within 15 working days of the unsuccessful completion of the Complaint Resolution process.”

            Members continued to discuss other items in the first motion, which are numbered 1, 3 and 4, including the role of the ombudsman, and use of the word “evidentiary”, suggesting that confusion exists with the formality of the process and the possibility of escalation of the process through filing a written complaint.  A motion by Steve Ross, seconded by John Purdy, to table discussion on the entire first motion passed unanimously.

 

4/8/02
Proposed Revisions to Appendix G of the Faculty Handbook (Policy and Procedural Guidelines for Misconduct in Research and Scholarship)

After reviewing language changes to Appendix G, Senators suggested inviting Dean Ghali to the Senate to help clarify the policy.  Members suggested adding a preamble to explain that the changes make the policy compliant with federal standards when the document is published in FAST.  A motion was made by Steve Ross, seconded by Sara Weir, to table discussion until the next Senate meeting, which passed.

 

4/8/02
Handbook Changes to Streamline Elections

Vicki Hamblin presented a draft of handbook changes to streamline the election process and to replace the Appointment and Elections Committee with an Appointments and Elections Officer.  After reviewing the draft a motion was made (in two parts) by Chris Suczek, seconded by Tom Read to divide the question (into Articles and Bylaws), which passed.  As a second part of the same motion Senators then voted to send the separated Articles to the faculty for a vote.  A motion was made by Robert Thorndike, seconded by James Loucky to postpone the remaining sections of the bylaws in the first motion until the Articles could be voted on, which passed.  Members suggested that the Academic Coordinating Commission consider appointing an elections officer to track its standing committees.   Members considered additional bylaws.  Senators passed the following changes (deletions struck-through, additions underlined) which will go to FAST for publication before returning to the Senate for a second vote. 

“BL 12.5.4:  Seats on the Faculty Senate … Such appointments will be in effect for one year two years, and seats so filled revert to Area Representation in the elections of the following year at the end of that term.

BL 12.1:  Procedures.  The time, place, and manner … nominations for Faculty Senate positions shall be at such a time that a list of nominees for Faculty Senate positions is published at least 15 10 days prior to the election.

BL 12.4.4:  Area elections are at the same time and in the same manner as elections for University-wide At-large Faculty Senate positions.”

Senators also passed a motion that until the revised BL 12.5.4 can be fully implemented, the Appointments and Elections Committee [Appointments and Elections Officer] be allowed to include a limited number of one-year Area representation positions in order to readjust the number of Senate members being elected annually. 

 

4/8/02
Meeting Calender for Academic Year 2002-2003 A motion was made by Kevin Leonard, seconded by Chris Suczek to approve the Senate meeting calendar for 2002-2003 which passed. 4/8/02
Faculty Grievance Procedure

Senators reviewed a motion, (Motion #4) brought from the Executive Council, and seconded by Jeff Newcomer, to accept the following changes to the language of the Faculty Grievance Procedure 1/16/2001 draft which read as follows:  

That the Faculty Senate strike section 6.b. from the document.  Members agreed to obtain further information before acting on this motion.  Kennedy will find out from the University of Washington if the policy described in the language has ever been exercised.

Senators reviewed a second draft of additional changes in a motion brought by the Executive Council, seconded by Sara Weir, which referred to Section IV of the same draft.  Kennedy reported that Bob Thorndike and Wendy Bolke had reviewed the edits.  Phil Montague made a motion to postpone the discussion, seconded by Chris Suczek, which was withdrawn.  Provost Bodman questioned the phrasing of clauses, which excused committee members without cause.  A motion was made by Tom Read, seconded by Jeff Newcomer to first separate the questions and to vote only on items 4 and 5, which was passed.   A motion was made by Tom Read, seconded by John Purdy, which passed, to approve the changes it items 4 and 5 as follows:   

4.  That the number D.5. “The Hearing Panel’s Power to Compel Evidence” be changed to number D.6; number D.6, the “Grievance Decision” be changed to number D.7.

 

5.  That the language in B.3.a. be changed to: “If at the end of the 15-day period the dispute has not been resolved informally. ..”

 A motion brought by John Purdy, seconded by Chris Suczek, to accept five other revisions in the draft failed, and Kennedy agreed to rewrite the changes and bring them forward again.

 

3/11/02
Extension of Deadline for Senate Nominations  Vicki Hamblin reported that numerous nominees are needed to fill almost every area vacancy on the Senate, and encouraged Senators to sign up for a second term.  Chris Suczek made a motion, seconded by TJ Olney to extend the deadline for submitting nominations to Friday March 15th, which passed unanimously.  Ballots will be mailed in the 1st week of Spring Quarter.

 

3/11/02
ACC Minutes 2/5/02

Kathleen Kennedy and Steve Ross edited a language change in the resolution for the GUR Transfer Among Baccalaureate Institutions.  Kennedy made a motion, seconded by Chris Suczek, which was then passed that the Faculty Senate accepts the following change (bolded) to the language in the original motion recorded in the ACC minutes of 2/5/02:

“If a Washington public baccalaureate institution certifies that a student has met those general education requirements that are covered by the direct transfer agreement with (Washington) community colleges at the sending institution, the receiving Washington public baccalaureate institution will accept that the transfer student has met all of the receiving institution’s lower division general education requirements.”

 

3/11/02
Faculty Grievance Procedure

Kennedy then presented Senators with language (bolded) on a second motion brought from the Executive Council and seconded by Tom Read (Vicki Hamblin added the word “Panel’s” in both sentences as a friendly amendment): 

“That the Faculty Senate accept the following changes to the language of the Faculty Grievance Procedure 1/16.2001 Draft:

1. That the language in section D.6.d. i. be changed to, “Any order of a Hearing Panel, other than cases in which the President is a party in the case, shall become the final decision of the University unless either party files an appeal to the President within 15 working days of receiving the Panel’s decision or unless the President elects to review the decision by giving written notice of intent to review to the parties within 15 working days of the decision to the President.

2. That the language in section D.6.e.i be changed to, “Any order of a Hearing Panel with respect to a case in which the President is a part shall become a final decision of the University unless either party files an appeal to the Board of Trustees (“Board”) within 15 working days of receiving the Panel’s decision to the parties, or unless the Board elects to review the decision by giving written notice of intent to review to the parties within 15 working days of the date of delivery of the decision to the Secretary of the Board.   

Senators passed the motion with one abstention after adding the word “Panel’s” in both sentences.

 

2/25/02
Faculty Grievance Procedure

Kennedy presented Senators with language changes (bolded) to the Faculty Grievance procedure 1/16/01 draft. The following motion was brought to the Senate from the Executive Council and seconded by Chris Suczek:

“That the Faculty Senate accept the following changes to the language of the Faculty Grievance Procedure 1/16/2001 Draft

1.  That the language in section B.1.C. be changed to “If the complaint is not resolved with the help of the ombudsman or administratively.”

2.  That the language in section B.2 be changed to “Within five working days of filing a written complaint, the complainant shall meet with the Facutly Senate President to discuss the complaint resolution process.”

3. That the heading in section B.3. be changed to “Assistance of Ombudsman in  Resolution of the Complaint.”

Senators passed the motion after adding the word “working” in the 2d sentence.

 

2/25/02
UPC - Report on Survey Phil Montague made a motion, seconded by Joan Stevenson, to endorse recommendations from the University Planning Council (after a friendly amendment from Steve Ross to change “report” to “recommendations”) which passed with one abstention.  

 

2/25/02
Appointments and Elections Committee Elections Senators approved the apportionment schedule for Faculty Senate elections after passing a motion that requested the Appointments and Elections committee work to ensure that exactly 15 faculty are elected each year. 

 

2/11/02
Bill Enabling Legislation for Collective Bargaining Senators agreed that they could neither support nor oppose HB2403/SB6440 (enabling legislation for collective bargaining) in its present form.  The Senate passed a motion made by Chris Suczek and seconded by Steve Ross not to take an additional stand on the bill.   The Senate also passed a motion made by Chris Suczek and seconded by Bob Thorndike to support a second bill that removes a cap on state retirement contributions and also removes a guaranteed floor on retirement benefits for faculty hired after July 1, 2002.  

1/28/02
Filling GER Committee Vacancies

A motion by Phil Montague, seconded by Tom Read was passed “that the Academic Coordinating Commission (ACC) be instructed to take whatever steps are necessary to fill the vacancies on the General Education Requirements (GER) committee so that the committee will become active and that this will be done with all deliberate speed.  The motion passed by hand count vote with 12 in favor, and 11 opposed.

§         Discussion included mention that the ACC had postponed filling the roster of the GER committee, a committee that has official university standing.  The ACC is undergoing a general review of its committees and their structure and purpose at this time.  Ross reported that the consensus of ACC was that the process of review by the GER committee was not expeditious, and the ACC was able to complete part 2 of the GER charge, regarding course review (for example only one GUR course was proposed this year) and felt capable of accomplishing GER agendas on its own.  Senators mentioned additional items such as Summer Study abroad programs which will be proposed for GUR credit of varying length and content, and which will add considerably to ACC’s agenda topics.

Ray Wolpow moved the question, seconded by Dave Wallin.  Senators voted to move 18 in favor, and 5 opposed by hand count (moving the question indicates an immediate vote be taken).

 

1/14/02
By-law Change

A motion brought from the Executive Council to replace language in BL7.6 of the Faculty Handbook (p. 68) was discussed by Senators.

Ř      Kennedy reported that the Council suggested the Grievance committee ought to be expanded -- reasoning that a committee of only seven would be overburdened if there were more than one grievance per year;

Ř      The EOC office also requests the service of one committee member per year in an investigative capacity.  Provost Bodman explained that the EOC consults with a single faculty member when a complaint is lodged by a student against a faculty member or by a faculty member against another faculty member.  Either faculty member is eligible to ask for assistance, and a member of the grievance committee is best qualified to assist.  This assignment had previously been approved by the Faculty Senate. 

Ř      The motion from the Executive Council was passed unanimously to replace language in BL7.6 of the Faculty Handbook (p. 68) with the following text. (An amendment by Chris Suczek seconded by Tom Read passed to add the highlighted sentence.) 

“BL7.6.  Faculty Standing Committee on Grievance and Sanctions

The Standing Committee shall consist of fifteen tenured faculty members.  Members of the Standing Committee shall be elected by the Faculty Senate to serve for staggered terms of three years, with five members of the Committee being elected in each year.  The Faculty Senate shall elect members in a manner approximately proportional to the distribution of faculty among the major academic units of the University. The Committee shall have a chair and a vice chair elected from and by the members of the committee.  The chair shall be selected from Committee members in the third year of their terms. The vice chair shall be selected from Committee members in the second year of their terms.  Normally, the vice chair will succeed the chair.  The members of the Standing Committee on Grievance and Sanctions will receive training relevant to their responsibilities.  Committee members shall adhere to the appropriate procedures as stated in the Faculty Handbook.  See Section I, part IX, Faculty Files, of this handbook for the policy on confidentiality.”

 

12/3/01
Survey with Clauses from Bills on Enabling Legislation Senators passed a motion made by Jeff Newcomer, seconded by Steve Ross, to prepare a survey which asks faculty to review specific clauses they might or might not want included in a potential bill on enabling legislation.

 

11/19/01
Charge to the University Planning Council

Senators charged the University Planning Council with a review of the status of limited-term and part-time faculty in a motion from the Executive Council which passed unanimously.  In answer to a question, Kennedy stated that the UPC report should be received by the end of Winter Quarter. Text follows:

“The faculty senate directs the University Planning Council to investigate the status of and offer clarification of handbook language regarding limited term and part-time faculty.  In particular, the Faculty Senate asks the University Planning Council to consider the following issues:

Limited Term Faculty:

1.  How should the University evaluate limited-term faculty for merit raises?  Current Handbook language suggests that limited-term faculty should be evaluated for merit raises based on teaching, scholarship and service but limited term faculty are often hired for specific duties such as teaching. 

2.  What type of faculty development should departments offer to limited term faculty?

3.  What type of contracts should limited term faculty receive?  How can we improve job security for semi-permanent faculty? 

4. What other issues do limited term faculty want us to address?

Part Time Faculty:

1.  How do we evaluate part-time tenure track faculty?  What standards of publication and service do we require? 

2.  How do we define part-time status?

3.  Should we count time for service differently for tenure track part time faculty?  For example, if we used the methods stipulated on page 10 of the faculty handbook, a tenure track part time employee (.5) would not be eligible for a sabbatical for twelve years or required to be tenured for twelve years.  Should we reconsider that policy given the number of fractional appointments we now have? “     -End text of motion-

 

11/19/01
Spousal Accommodation

Senators discussed the handbook language on partner accommodation, in particular a motion from the Executive Council which follows:

Motion from the Executive Council:

The faculty senate authorizes the Provost to extend for one year the President's Council's recommendation that the language in Section 3 of Appendix K of the faculty handbook incorporate the phrase "and the retention of existing faculty" in its policy on spousal accommodations.

 

Text [with addition bracketed and italicized]:

The successful recruitment [and retention of existing faculty] and administrative candidates in position searches may be significantly affected by the need to consider academic appointments for a candidate's partner.  In such cases, the need to achieve strategically important goals of the regular search may be sufficiently significant that the partner should be considered as an opportunity appointment.

The Senate passed a motion by Chris Suczek to substitute the following for the Executive Council motion.

The Faculty Senate authorizes the Provost to extend for one year the President’s Council’s recommendation about spousal hires for continuing faculty, with the expectation that Faculty Handbook language would be changed at the end of that time if the policy is to be continued.

 

Senators discussed the substitute motion, but, after a request for further perspective from Provost Bodman, voted to table the motion. It was suggested that since spousal accommodation is a faculty welfare issue, the policy and any changes to it should be discussed by a faculty-appointed committee.

 

10/15/01
Revision to Article X.B. of the Faculty Handbook

Paul Storer presented language suggested by the Salary and Welfare committee to update Article X.B of the Faculty Handbook.  Following a motion by Robert Thorndike, seconded by Chris Suczek, members voted unanimously to substitute this language, given below, for a different draft that had been distributed with materials for the meeting. A motion by Thorndike, seconded by Suczek, to accept the new language was also unanimously approved. (New language is in italics and is underlined): 

“Article X.B.  Salary Calendar

The contract period for the academic year begins September 16 and ends June 15.  Workshop and Continuing Education classes, externally funded research projects, and the Summer Session, which are not funded from State appropriations, are not considered part of the faculty member's regular assignment.  A faculty member may earn additional compensation for these activities.  In the case of externally funded research projects, the additional compensation shall not exceed the amount specifically approved by the sponsor, and shall be subject to all other limitations imposed by the sponsor.  Additional compensation during the academic year that is paid from Federal funds is subject to the limitations of the Office of Management and Budget Circulars.”

 

10/1/01