THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE

JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY SENATE

VOLUME XXV

MINUTES OF MEETING #436 6 DECEMBER, 2001,

APPROVED: JANUARY 31, 2002

PRESENT:

ADSC: Schnell, Floyd

LA: Stewart, Bell, Enger, Dillard, Early, Waring, Wilkerson, Williams, Eaton,

ENG: Toutanji, Fork, Gaede, Farrington

LIB: Warren

NUR: Redmon, Stanfield, Williamson

SCI: Christopher, Boyd, Li, Ravindran, Miller, Hillman

ABSENT WITH PROXY:

ADSC: Wren, Pendley

ENGR: Pollock, Landrum

LBAR: Berbrier

SCI: Friedman, Geary

ABSENT WITHOUT PROXY:

LBAR: Meister, Whatley

ENGR: Hawk, Smith

NUR: Reisenwitz, Herrin

SCI: Johnson, Baird, George, Pakhomov

0. President James Miller called the meeting to order at 12:55 p.m.

1. Draft Minutes of Meeting #435 were approved with one correction (Diana Bell was absent with proxy). Motion by Stephen Waring, seconded by Joan Williamson.

2. The Senate Executive Committee Report was accepted with one addition (The next Senate Meeting will be the Chancellor’s Address with Dr. Portera as the speaker, on January 10, 2002). Motion by Melinda Redmon, seconded by Stephen Waring.

3. President Franz’s Report:

Dr. Franz reported he did not really have any information from Montgomery. He stated they are spreading the meetings out. He stated there is some positioning and some planning going on. He believes they will come out with some plan.

Dr. Franz mentioned the “We the People” program and the “Town Hall Meeting” and the good success of both.

4. Provost Radonovich’s Report:

Dr. Radonovich reported he has given the opportunity for input to the Learning Community Proposal and he has received some but not a great deal. He stated that most of the comments were positive. He will attempt to implement it this fall.

5. A. Senate Committee Reports:

1. Executive: The report was distributed with the minutes. It was approved with one addition.

2. Faculty and Student Development: No Report.

3. Finance and Resources: Dr. Fork reported the Committee needs input for the handicapped parking for the Nursing Building. He is preparing a letter to go to Dave Brown. The Disability Act does not require other parking than that which is already provided but the Nursing Faculty would like the Committee to consider this issue. One point is that the service road would have to be used to accommodate additional handicapped parking near the building. Would this pose a problem or hazard since many students use these a footpaths to and from the parking lot and building.

4. Governance and Operations: No Report.

5. Personnel: Dr. Boyd reported the Committee has a bill to consider at third reading.

6. Undergraduate Curriculum: Dr. Landrum was not present but had submitted a report to Dr. Miller.

7. Undergraduate Scholastic Affairs: No Report but the Committee will have a bill later on the agenda.

B. University Committees: Dr. Eaton reported the Animal Care and Use Committee met and considered proposals for animal use in experimentations.

C. Officer Reports:

Parliamentarian: No Report.

Ombudsperson: No Report.

President-Elect: No Report.

President: Dr. Miller reported regarding Senate Bill 291. Dr. Franz and Dr. Radonovich met with a portion of the Senate Executive Committee. There were some problems with wording in the bill. The bill needed clarification. There are different types of deans and the portion of the bill referencing this needed work. The bill was taken off the agenda by the Senate Executive Committee and referred back to the Personnel Committee for further work.

Past President: No Report.

6. Senate Bill 290: Amendment to Appendix A of the Faculty Handbook.

Ms. Redmon moved, seconded by Dr. Waring to bring Senate Bill 290 to the floor for

third reading. Dr. Boyd reported that the Senate Executive Committee and Dr. Franz and Dr. Radonovich discussed the wording of this bill. Some recommendations for friendly amendments were made. Line two change "their” to “each”. In line 6 change “faculty governance” to “shared governance”. Line 15 change “review” to “evaluation”. Line 20 change “interim review” to “evaluation”. Line 21 change “compiled” to “reviewed”. Line 23 change “review” to “evaluation”. These are offered as friendly amendments. There is one other change that we will discuss because it is a more substantive change. There were no objections to the friendly amendments. The amendments were adopted.

Dr. Miller reported the other change requested was to delete the last sentence of the bill. The consensus was that this would remove some of the substantive value of the bill.

Dr. Franz spoke regarding the bill. He stated there is an evaluation instrument referred to in this bill. The Provost is developing an instrument to share. This is something that has a tie to the criteria used. This is something that should be known.

Dr. Franz explained why he would like the last sentence deleted. He views this as the equivalent to faculty asking their class to review them at midterm to see how they can improve. It would not be appropriate to put this in the promotion and tenure file for the faculty member. By the same token we do not want to put these midterm evaluations in the dean’s fifth year review file. We should not prejudice the fifth year review with the fifth semester evaluation. If this is here with something written and in the file this will likely be accessible by the Federal Information Act. Dr. Franz has asked Mr. Rieder about this but does not have a definite answer from Mr. Rieder yet.

There was some discussion regarding reasons for having the record. It could help with

iterative improvements. The bill seems to lose its value if the last two lines are removed. The Provost stated he believes this can bias the fifth year review by having this included. He does not see the value of having it in.

There was some discussion regarding the difference between reappointment and tenure

reviews and the evaluation of a dean.

It was pointed out that if there is a problem we tend to focus on the problem.

Another opinion pointed out the logic is that this is another point of information and it would not bias the fifth year review. Some pointed out it could be useful and beneficial.

It was pointed out that there should not be a concern and there is no malice intended with this

bill. The question was asked of how does it compare to the SIE evaluation. It was pointed out that this could all be positive and it could be helpful in certain circumstances.

The question was asked of whether the sentences could be reworded and be acceptable.

Dr. Franz suggested we may be able to interlock the two bills when Senate Bill 291 comes back from Committee and have an instrument that we may be able to live with if it is some variation of this.

Dr. Wilkinson moved, seconded by Dr. Schnell to call the question.

The bill passed at third reading 32 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 abstentions.

7. Senate Bill 292: Revision to the Withdrawal Policy. Dr. Miller gave the history of this bill.

The charge was given to the Committee to look at moving the withdrawal date to the last day of

the semester. Dr. Farrington moved, seconded by Dr. Williamson to move the bill to the floor at

second reading. Dr. Farrington introduced the bill. He stated the Committee checked with other

institutions that were similar and they had dates closer to the end of the semester. This gives an

opportunity to get information and feedback to the students so that they can make an informed

decision. One individual pointed out they had researched other institutions and they did not find

anyone with a date this late in the semester. There was some concern for becoming too forgiving

to students. Dr. Williams moved, seconded by Dr. Schnell to call the question.

The bill passed at second reading 26 in favor, 3 opposed, and 2 abstentions.

8. President Miller adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m.