Faculty Senate

2012-13 Committee Objectives

Radford University Faculty Senate
Committee Objectives
Academic Year 2012-2013

Introduction

The following committee objectives have been developed by the Faculty Senate Executive Council. The objectives are loosely rank-ordered. All objectives should be considered important, and the committee should attempt to accomplish all objectives. These objectives are not intended to be all-inclusive—any committee member, other Senators, and the Faculty Senate Executive Council (FSEC) may refer other issues to the committee for consideration and action. Feel free to form subcommittees as needed to address specific objectives more expeditiously.

All committees should record minutes of their meetings. Minutes and other committee documents (e.g., reports) should be forwarded to the Senate secretary (kgainer@radford.edu) for posting on the Senate webpage.

Campus Environment Committee Objectives

1. Conduct an online Faculty Morale Survey in spring 2013 similar to the one conducted in spring 2012. Tenured, tenure-track, A&P, special purpose, and adjunct faculty should all be included. Include gender as a demographic item in the morale survey.

a. Create two reports: (1) A general release report similar to the one released in spring 2012, summarizing 2013 quantitative results and also comparing quantitative results of the 2013 survey with the 2011 and 2012 surveys. (2) A full report for the President and Board of Visitors similar to the full report from spring 2012, including the full general release report as well as all unedited written comments.

b. When the two reports above are completed, both reports should be submitted to the FSEC for appropriate distribution. CEC members should treat the full report for the President and Board of Visitors as highly confidential.

2. Liaise with Office of Diversity and Equity (Director, Brooke Chang), Facilities Planning and Construction (Director, Roy Saville), Diversity and Equity Action Committee, and any other relevant offices to follow up on results of the Accessibility Forums hosted by the CEC in November 2012.

3. Liaise with Faculty Senate President (Laura Jacobsen) on the COACHE survey implementation, to provide support, as needed, in preparing for, implementing, and reviewing results from the COACHE survey to be administered in fall 2012.

4. Make a recommendation regarding future survey implementations. Assuming COACHE is re-administered on its recommended three-year cycle, what should be done regarding the existing RU Faculty Morale Survey? Should we continue to administer that in addition, or in off-sequence years for COACHE, or can the survey be replaced with something different, such as focus group discussions on key issues? Please note that COACHE does not include adjuncts. What provisions would be needed, if any, to ensure we continue to receive their feedback?

5. Review the Radford Transit services, schedules, and bus tracker app and report on the progress of this alternative to parking at Radford University (http://www.radford.edu/content/it/home/business-services/parking/radford-transit.html).

6. Make a recommendation regarding parking for scooters on campus, such as whether “corrals” are needed.

Curriculum Committee Objectives

1. Follow up with ad hoc Core 201/202 committee regarding the motion approved 4/19/12: (http://senate.asp.radford.edu/current/motions/120419_CC_RevisedCore%20201_202Motion_I_amended.pdf) and consider whether any next steps are required.

2. Make a recommendation to the Faculty Senate regarding whether to incorporate a +/- grading system for undergraduate programs. (Graduate programs already have this option available.)

3. Work with the Registrar’s Office on the development of an online form that faculty could use to report such issues as (1) broken or missing lecterns; (2) disappearance of desks; and (3) other structural issues in classrooms.

4. Liaise with the 2012-2013 Temporary University-Wide Task Force on Online Course Delivery to report on the progress of that task force’s work.

5. Liaise with the Core Director to make recommendations for any needed changes in the Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook or Administrative and Professional Faculty Handbook, and/or recruitment guides regarding the appointment, roles, and evaluation of Core Coordinators.

Faculty Issues Committee Objectives

1. Review AAUP and other relevant materials on “stopping the tenure clock,” (e.g., http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/WF/tenureclock.htm; http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2004/ND/Col/ndlw.htm) and formulate a recommendation for RU’s institutional policy.

Share draft(s) with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (Bill Kennan) and the FSEC for feedback, and make a recommendation to the Faculty Senate. Liaise with offices (e.g., Human Resources) as needed to ensure that any recommendation would be in accordance with the legal system.

2. Review RU’s current policies on family leave and academic work. See AAUP and other relevant materials on these issues (e.g., http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/WF/leavepolicies.htm; http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/workfam-stmt.htm) and formulate a recommendation for RU’s institutional policy.

3. Review the university calendar and investigate (i) campus interest and feasibility of a fall break, (ii) campus interest and feasibility (e.g., classroom space issues with Registrar’s Office) of a shortened Friday schedule with no afternoon classes.

4. Review the Grade Appeals document and make recommendations regarding appeals hearings, Core 201/202 grade appeals, and cases of academic dishonesty. Liaise with FSEC for more information.

5. Make recommendations regarding changes to the Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook regarding the rights of contingent faculty members including, but not limited to, the right to file appeals and grievances.

6. Make a recommendation regarding the adequacy of the current student evaluation forms utilized in courses for online, hybrid, or other distance education course formats. Liaise with the University-Wide Task Force on Online Course Delivery.

7. Liaise with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Bill Kennan, to review the newly revised policies related changes to summer school funding models and to follow up on summer school pay for faculty and the method(s) to be used to determine whether a course will “make.”

Governance Committee Objectives

1. Collect and report data pertaining to the annual evaluation of Deans.

2. Make a recommendation regarding a mechanism for including Core Curriculum faculty representation on the Senate, reviewing the adjunct/special purpose provisions in item #10 of the Faculty Senate bylaws. Consider whether the faculty who teach exclusively in the Core should have a rotation so that they may serve on the Senate on the same basis as in the colleges.

3. Make a recommendation regarding who should be able to evaluate the Dean of Graduate and Professional Studies. Recommend whether this should include others who report to the Graduate College Dean, such as the Office of Sponsored Programs and Grants Management, in addition to Graduate faculty.

4. Make a recommendation related to the Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook regarding the term of service as department chair or school director. Consider whether there should be chair or director term limits or a repetition of the Internal Search process. Consider whether changes are needed to annual or quadrennial forms used for evaluating and determining faculty satisfaction with chairs/directors.

5. Continue last year’s Governance Committee’s efforts related to reviewing the procedures adopted by the Faculty Appeals Committee and the Faculty Grievance Committee describing the conduct of committee business. Make recommendations for whether or not the policies for these committees should be incorporated into the relevant sections of the Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook and, if so, provide draft language. Also continue the review of faculty grievance committee procedures for grievances that arise in summer.

6. Liaise with the Intellectual Property Committee to communicate with the Faculty Senate about their pending recommendation on a revised IP policy.

7. Liaise with the Internal Governance Leadership/Writing Committee through the Governance Committee Chair’s participation on that committee.

Resource Allocation Committee Objectives

1. Continue and complete last year’s committee study and proposals regarding teaching workload and overloads. Make a recommendation regarding faculty workload, following from the study and from AAUP recommendations in the “Statement on Faculty Workload.”

2. Liaise with the Provost’s Office and administration regarding a funding model for Core A, with consideration of the report on improving the delivery of Core 201 and 202 and possible departmental involvement for one section or multiple course sections.

3. Continue working with the Vice President for University Advancement to review revenues and expenditures for RU Foundation accounts for the past 5 years, including a comparison of the most recent 5 year cycle to that of the preceding 5 years. Compile a report of the findings.

4. Work with the Vice President for University Advancement to review revenues and expenditures for the Real Estate Foundation Board accounts for the past 5 years. Also report on its mechanism of operation with respect to the RU Foundation and RU as an institution. Review and report on rental policies and procedures for departmental programs or grant-funded projects.

5. Make a recommendation regarding the processes that should be implemented the next time faculty salary adjustments are made, such as for preferred steps and mechanisms for involvement of faculty, chairs, and administration in the process.

6. Liaise with the Dean of the College of Graduate and Professional Studies and with the Faculty Scholarly Activities Committee to follow up on recommendations to make the Seed Grant application process less cumbersome and to expand deadline options to make the process more convenient for interested faculty. Report to the Faculty Senate on the outcomes.

7. For RU peer institutions or other similar institutions, review indirect cost rates applied to grants and percentage of funds that are returned to the Principal Investigators. Also review peer institutions’ policies on the cost charged for faculty course release time, and whether policies vary depending on the nature of the grant (e.g., 1/8 salary as compared to the cost of adjunct backfill; policies for research vs. teaching/professional development grants). Report on how these institutions’ policies compare to the new RU policies.