UAH FACULTY SENATE
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.