|
|
|
|
Faculty Senate Meeting Agenda |
14 December 1999 |
|
|
|
3:30pm --- Ferguson Forum
Proposed addition to the Faculty Handbook, to be added as Chapter 1. V. D. (page 12).
D. Faculty Referenda
Faculty are responsible for establishing and modifying academic policies and for providing recommendations to the administration on matters of faculty concern. Recommendations concerning issues affecting a broad cross-section of faculty and academic units are made by the Faculty Senate. Those matters the Faculty Senate deems to be especially important are referred to the faculty for a faculty-wide vote. Such matters include modifications to the University general education requirements and other curriculum matters that are not specific to individual academic divisions; faculty status, rights, and working conditions; and similar matters of concern to the general faculty.
The wording of such referenda will be determined by the Faculty Senate after consultation with the Provost. Voting will be administered by the Office of Academic Affairs and generally will commence within six weeks following a decision by the Faculty Senate that a referendum is required. The Office of Academic Affairs will print, distribute, receive and count ballots. Faculty will have a minimum of two weeks to submit ballots after they have been distributed. The Office of Academic Affairs should provide a written statement of voting results within two weeks after the deadline for submission of ballots. The voting process normally should be completed within ten weeks following a decision by the Faculty Senate that a referendum is required.
Except as governed by other sections of the Faculty Handbook, for purposes of voting on referenda, "faculty" is defined to include all permanent and temporary full-time faculty with the rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, or equivalent and whose administrative appointments do not exceed fifty percent of their total appointments. Visiting and emeriti faculty are not included in this definition. The Faculty Senate may elect, by a majority vote of the Senate, to modify the list of faculty eligible to vote on a particular referendum.
Except as governed by other sections of the Faculty Handbook, a question on a referendum will pass if it is approved (1) by a majority of the faculty who vote in the referendum and (2) by a majority of colleges and equivalent academic divisions (determined by a majority of their voting faculty) that participate in the referendum. The Faculty Senate may modify these rules as necessary in cases of referenda asking the faculty to choose between more than two options.
Faculty are entitled to vote only in the division in which they hold their primary appointment. In cases of joint appointment, faculty must choose an academic unit in which to vote.
Matters specific to individual colleges or equivalent academic units and not affecting a broad-cross section of faculty outside of those academic units are not governed by these policies.
The Evaluation and Reward of Teaching Committee meet on Tuesday, November 30, 1999 from 12:15-1:15 in 211 Carmichael.
The following committee members were present: P. Bauch (Chair), M. J. Taylor, M. Roberts, B. Cargile, B. Blewitt, J. Beeler, M. Rice, and J. German.
After a lengthly discussion concerning the charges and proposed agenda for the meeting, the following concerns arose and decisions made:
1. The committee members agreed that the committee's first charge: "Strengthening the current student class attendance policy," did not fit the title nor assumed purpose of the committee; rather a separate committee needs to be established to investigate and set policy regarding student class attendance and its relationship to grades.
2. The second charge, "Establishing rewards for faculty excellence in advising," had little support among the committee members since, again, it did not seem related to the title nor overall intention of the committee. Some thought that rewards for advising have been or should be integrated into promotion and tenure awards; others saw advising in some colleges as a task undertaken by specialized personnel (e.g., College of Communications), not generally undertaken by facuty, esp. with regard to coursework and degree requirements. Lastly, others saw advising as a part of service, not teaching.
3. What is the focus of this committee? Is it focused more on institutional policy changes or on providing teaching resources or both? There is need for a sense of scope. How would Deans and Chairs be involved? (questions)
4. A number of institutional barriers to the improvement and reward of teaching were discussed: no training of department chairs in the evaluation of teaching, no staff development resources are available on-campus where faculty can go to seek help in improving their teaching, there is not much incentive to change, Center for Teaching and Learning no longer provides outside course evaluations as a service to faculty.
5. The group discussed the following tasks for the committee:
a. develop a new student survey course form
b. investigate the possibility for a Faculty Development web site where new faculty could obtain information about teaching and its evaluation.
c. provide for an annual teaching seminar for new faculty which could replicate the workshop format offered now to GTAs.
d. develop or make available information regarding faculty portifolio development in the evaluation of teaching
e. examine how other institutes evaulate and reward teaching
For our next meeting, the committee decided to research a) student course surveys, and b) portfolio information. This could be done at the program, department, or college levels; on the internet, or from any other source. Committee members may send this material to Margaret D'Souza, Rm. 107 Carmichael Hall, New College (Box 870229) and may access it there for review prior to our next meeting.
The next meeting will be held from 12:00-1:30pm on Tuesday, December 14 in 211 Carmichael Hall.
Respectfully submitted, Pat Bauch, Chair
Report of Student Affairs Committee
The Student Affairs Committee met Friday 11/12, 2:00pm in the Ferguson Center. Present were Gary Moynihan, James Taylor, and Dexter Gordon.
We decided that the committee would consider closed all the issues from last year's agenda. The one exception would be diversity on campus. On this issue we noted that the Steering Committee of the Faculty Senate had met with VP for Student Affairs, Sybil Todd, and was less than satisfied with what the Steering Committee viewed as very little progress. This was reported to the full senate. Subsequent to this meeting, on the invitation of Charles Brown, Dexter Gordon addressed the monthly meeting of directors of student affairs related units on campus on the issue of diversity encouraging the promotion of a culture of diversity in the various units. Also, subsequent to the meeting with Sybil Todd, the President of the Senate met with University President Andrew Sorensen who proposed to address the Faculty Senate on the issue of diversity at UA at the Senate's December meeting. The SA Committee decided that we will continue our representation on the Diversity Oversight Committee (Jim Taylor & Dexter Gordon) working in collaboration with this group to engender diversity at UA. We will meet next Friday, January 7 at 2:00pm at Starbucks in the Ferguson Center.
The following is a proposal developed by Bob Sigler in collaboration with the Diversity Oversight Action Plan Review Subcommittee that was presented to the Diversity Oversight Committee on Dec 2, 1999.
PLAN INSTRUCTIONS
The diversity oversight committee has developed instructions for completing your diversity plan for the 2000-2001 academic year. There are a number of changes in both what we would like for you to prepare and in the process that we will use. This year's planing process will provide early substantial feedback on the plan that you develop for your organization or member organizations.
The attached instruction sheet will provide the information that you need to prepare your diversity plan for the coming year. Please remember that while diversity is broadly defined, we are focusing on a specific problem at this time: the need to improve racial harmony on our campus. There are at least two dimensions to this problem.
First, some student organizations continue to be segregated by race. Intentional, planned, or structural segregation is wrong and should not be tolerated on the campus of the University of Alabama. Organizations that are presently segregated should be encouraged to open their membership to members of other races and ethnic groups.
Second, some minority members of the University community report that they feel that the atmosphere on campus is not friendly or supportive of minority group interests and involvement. These statements have been received from both Americans of African descent and from international students. Perception of the University environment as less supportive than it should be affects both retention and alumni support. We need to be concerned if well qualified members of minority groups leave campus for other schools or choose a route other than education for pursuing their goals. It should also be noted that students do not perform well in a negative or non-supportive learning environment which can also effect retention. Some minority alumni report they do not feel a strong attachment to our campus. This is also related to atmosphere. Some minority alum report that the University is little more than a place they came to get a degree. We need to develop an environment on our campus in which every student feels free to participate in campus activities as fully as he or she might choose. All of our students should leave campus with strong positive memories of their years here as a student.
We have two overriding goals for our campus. We need to encourage every segregated organization to evaluate their role in the future of our campus and the future of Alabama as a part of the new south. Integrated organizations need to evaluate their roles in making our campus a nurturing supportive environment for all students. Your plans should be related to these two overriding goals. Preparing the Annual Diversity Plan
PROCESSES AND DEADLINES
Your plans will be developed in two stages to allow feedback from the committee while you are developing your ideas. You should begin working on your plans early so that you can include input from the members of your organization. You can also get help from the committee during the early stages of plan development. Your primary resource will be Bob Sigler, 553-3897, 3487781, rsigler@cj.as.ua.edu. If you prefer, you may contact any member of the Diversity Oversight Action Plan Review Subcommittee and ask if they have time to work with you.
The first draft of your plan for the 2000-2001 academic year is due no later then February 14. This draft should be complete and be acceptable to your membership or to their elected or appointed representatives. The subcommittee will review your plan. We will provide you with constructive criticism by March 1. You can get additional help from the subcommittee as you revise your plan by contacting Bob Sigler. The final draft of your plan will be due no later then March 15. The committee will review your plan and notify you that your plan has been approved by April 1. In the unlikely event that your plan is not acceptable, a member of the subcommittee will work with you to improve your plan if you wish. You will provide a progress report no later than December 15. The committee will review your progress report and provide constructive criticism by January 17. At that time you will begin finalizing your plan for the 2001-2002 academic year.
CONTENTS OF THE PLAN
Develop A Working Definition of Diversity
Your plan will begin with your working definition of diversity. Your definition should be tailored to meet the needs of your particular circumstances rather than a general vague statement.
Identify Problems to be Addressed and Potential Contributions
Your plan will then identify the problems that will be addressed within your organization or within your member organizations. You will then identity the contributions that your organization or your member organizations can make to improve diversity first within your organization then in the broader University community. You should address the needs of your own organization before addressing the needs of the broader community.
Establish Five Year Goals
After reviewing your problems and your abilities you will establish a five-year goal or set of goals. These goals should be specific to your organization and should be achievable. These goals will vary widely from organization to organization. An organization or set of organizations which is presently segregated might have as one of its goals the development of an organizational environment in which the individual members or participating organizations can recruit minority members without fear of criticism or loss of status. An organization that is presently fully integrated might seek to create an environment in which the minority members are fully engaged in the activities of the organization. An organization that has a few minority members might plan to develop an environment that would be attractive to minority members to increase the number of minority members. You should ask yourself where you would like your organization to be on diversity in 2005.
Identify Barriers
Once you have identified your five-year goal or goals, you will identify barriers to the achievement of your goals. These barriers might include such things as the presence of a small group of members who are opposed to integration, pressure from external or internal agents to maintain tradition, potential loss of status, lack of awareness of the problems experienced by minority students, or apathy. One goal of your first year plan can be undertaking a process to clearly identify these barriers. These barriers must be specific to your organization, real, and include those barriers about which you ordinarily would rather not talk.
Develop First Year Plan
You are now ready to develop your specific first year plan. You will describe the goals that you will set for yourselves to complete during the first year of your five-year plan. These goals should allow you to complete at least one-fifth of the progress you need to make to achieve your five-year goals in five years.
Identify Specific Actions
You will complete the plan by identifying the specific actions or processes that will be undertaken in the first year. Relate these actions and processes to the one-year and five-year goals. You should remember that you will be conducting a self assessment in December. While we are not requesting that you have measurable goals, you should consider how you will decide if you are successfully accomplishing your objectives. In particular, attitude change components need not be quantifiable.
Remember, the committee has a work group of 26 faculty and staff who have been trained to assist with diversity training. They have the skills needed to help you clarify your goals, understand diversity, and develop your plan. Contact Charles Brown to have a team of two trainers assigned to your organization.
Time line
February 14--first draft of your plan for the 2000-2001 academic year; March 1--constructive criticism from Diversity Committee; March 15--final draft of your plan due; April 1--plan approved; December 15--progress report due; January 17--constructive criticism from Diversity Committee; February--first draft of the 2001-02 plan due
Financial Support
The committee is prepared to provide up to $200 to support specific activities in your plan. In most circumstances, organizations will be limited to one award a year.
RECOGNITION
The subcommittee would like to recommend the development of three levels of recognition. The first level will be the development of an award for the organization that implements the best project designed to promote diversity on campus. This award may be developed by CCSO. If so, it will be their award and they will develop the criteria and process for selection.
The second will be the monthly display of the diversity efforts of an organization judged to be implementing a good program in a prominent area of the Student Union. This program might be developed by an organization such as University programming.
The third will be emphasizing the premier student award presently dedicated to recognizing the efforts of an individual student who makes substantial contributions to diversity.
Dexter B. Gordon