UAH FACULTY SENATE
PRESENT:
ADSC: Schnell, Pendley
LA: Stewart, Enger, Meister, Waring, Whatley, Wilkerson, Eaton, Berbrier
ENG: Smith, Toutanji, Fork, Gaede, Pollock, Landrum
LIB: Warren
NUR: Redmon, Stanfield, Williamson
SCI: Johnson, Li, Etzkorn, Friedman, Miller, Pakhomov, Hillman
ABSENT WITH PROXY:
ADSC: Wren, Floyd
ENGR: Farrington
LBAR: Early, Williams
SCI: Boyd, Ravindran, Geary
ABSENT WITHOUT PROXY:
LBAR: Dillard
ENGR: Hawk
NUR: Reisenwitz
SCI: Christopher, Baird, George
0. President James Miller called the meeting to order at 12:55 p.m.
1. Draft Minutes of Meeting #434 were approved. Motion by Richard Fork, seconded by Melinda Redmon.
2. The Senate Executive Committee Report was accepted as amended. Motion by Melinda Redmon, seconded by Rhonda Gaede.
3. President Franz’s Report:
Dr. Franz
was asked about his opinion on the appointment of the new Chancellor. Dr. Franz reported he believes it was a very
positive move to appoint Dr. Mac Portera as the new Chancellor. Dr. Portera worked in our system for
twenty-five years in the governmental relations and economic development
areas. He played a significant role
in the spin-off of the Medical School to UAB.
His experience at Mississippi was very good. The Board did a good job in their choice. He is a good choice for us.
Dr. Franz commented
briefly on the presentation made by Dr. Mabry.
4. Provost Radonovich’s Report:
Dr. Radonovich reported
briefly on the “Learning Community Proposal”.
He distributed information and explained the information briefly. He requested input from the Senate. Dr. Radonovich explained the proposal will
be sent electronically to others. There
were some questions regarding faculty responsibility, number of students, how
the system will handle registering these students and designating seats in the
courses for them. There were also
questions regarding whether this same model had been tried at other similar
universities and if so, what was the success rate there.
5. A. Senate Committee Reports:
1. Executive: The report was distributed with the minutes. It was approved with one correction.
2. Faculty and Student
Development: Ms. Redmon reported the
Committee did not meet but they are still investigating the Academic Misconduct
issue.
3. Finance and Resources: Dr. Fork reported the Committee is looking
at the Handicapped parking for the Nursing Building. They will write a letter to Dave Brown.
4. Governance and Operations: Dr. Meister reported the Committee has
turned in the names of those faculty elected to the Faculty Appeals
Committee. He read that list of names.
5. Personnel: Dr. Miller reported the Committee will have two bills to bring to the
table later in this meeting.
6. Undergraduate Curriculum: Dr. Landrum reported the Committee met via
the Internet and approved some routine courses. He made a request that everyone get their information in so the
Committee will have ample time to review and approve changes, etc.
7. Undergraduate Scholastic
Affairs: Dr. Smith reported the Committee
has formulated a bill to go to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee at their
next meeting. He reported the Committee
is still examining the “Readmission Policy”.
B. University Committees: No Report
C. Officer Reports:
Parliamentarian: No Report.
Ombudsperson: No Report.
President-Elect: Dr. Waring reported that Dr. Miller and he
attended an ACUFP meeting at Jacksonville State University on November 9 and
10. He explained they learned a great
deal from the meeting. He reported they
heard a presentation by Mr. Stone that was impressive. The presentation was regarding HEP. Dr. Waring suggests we have Mr. Stone come
here and give the same presentation.
Endorsing Constitutional Reform may be discussed in the next few months.
Promotional raises were discussed at the ACUFP meeting and this was
very interesting and it was found these are inconsistencies across the
State.
President: No Report.
Past President: Dr. Williamson reported we are working to
get Legislators to come to campus in November for an open forum.
6. Senate Bill 290: Amendment to Appendix A of the Faculty Handbook.
Ms. Redmon moved, seconded by Dr. Wilkerson to bring
Senate Bill 290 to the floor for discussion.
Dr. Miller explained that the version sent via email was that which was
passed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee two weeks ago. Members of the Faculty Senate Executive
Committee met and changed some incorrect wording. Dr. Miller proposed these changes
be accepted via a friendly amendment.
Dr. Fork moved, seconded by Ms. Redmon that the changes be
accepted. Dr. Miller explained this
bill is an addition to the current section in the Faculty Handbook.
Dr. Radonovich requested to briefly speak regarding
bills 290 and 291. Dr. Radonovich spoke
against Senate Bills 290 and 291.
He stated that first of all he did not believe you can evaluate a good dean in less than three or four years. He stated it takes four years to see good work. He stated we have a mechanism already in the Handbook to deal with a bad dean.
Dr. Radonovich stated a second point is that when one reads the statement in the bill of a vote, they get the false sense of confidence that this vote determines the lifetime of a dean. He stated this is not consistent with the Shared Governance of the University. The dean serves at the privilege of the Provost and the Provost serves at the pleasure of the President. This is cross-grain to an established process.
The third point Dr. Radonovich made was this can
create instability in the Institution.
(Dr. Radonovich left the meeting immediately after his comments in order to attend another meeting).
The Faculty Senate responded to Dr. Radonovich’s statements.
The evaluations discussed
in the bill are not binding and the faculty are not voting with the expectation
of determining the lifetime of a dean.
The evaluations are informational.
These bills are not designed to undercut any current traditional
processes. They are not binding on the
Provost’s decision or discretion.
There was some concern expressed for the lack of any
filter regarding the evaluation information to the Provost. The Committee Members explained the intent
was that they wanted this to be data and information going to the Provost from
the Faculty unfiltered. The idea was
that this could provide information and an advisory capacity giving opportunity
for adjusting behavior or policies.
These are not intended to be negative.
If there is negative feedback, it is not grounds for dismissing. There was an amendment to change the wording
in the last few lines to say “an overview of the faculty concerns and support”
proposed by Dr. Smith. This failed to
receive a second. Dr. Wilkerson moved,
seconded by Ms. Redmon to call the question.
The vote regarding the bill was 29 in favor, 2 opposed, and 2
abstentions.
Dr. Franz then requested
time to address the bill. He expressed
concerns with the bills and stated Dr. Radonovich and he will need to work with
the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to address the concerns and reach a
mutually agreeable solution.
Due to lack of time, Senate Bill 291 was deferred to the next Faculty Senate Meeting.
7. President Miller adjourned the meeting at 2:15 p.m. with a motion from Dr. Schnell, seconded by Ms. Redmon.