Minutes of the University Faculty Council Meeting
20 February 2004

UniFC members present: Andy Howard (BCPS / Secretary), Phil Troyk (BME / MCFC Chair), Michael Young (Psych / UniFC Chair), Glenn Broadhead (Hum), Ken Schug (BCPS).

Absent: Howard Chapman (Kent), Joel Goldhar (Stuart), George Schipporeit (Arch), Xian-he Sun (CS), Dan Tarlock (Kent) Miles Wernick (ECE), Judy Zawojewski (MSED).

Guests: M.Ellen Mitchell (Psyc), Mary Anne Smith (Counsel).

The University Faculty Council convened at 12:32pm following the end of the Main Campus Faculty Council meeting.

University Faculty Meeting: The University faculty meeting is currently scheduled for Wednesday 28 April downtown. Mary Anne Smith expressed a concern over the ability to field a quorum for that meeting, without which it will be impossible to get the Handbook revisions approved. The Council discussed the possibility of moving the meeting to the main campus to increase the probability of getting a quorum. The Council concluded that moving the meeting to the main campus would be desirable.

Proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook:

1. Defining active emeritus faculty: The lack of a clear definition for active emeriti can cause a problem with assembling a quorum for meetings. After some discussion the following definition was proposed:
   Active emeritus faculty are those who continue to participate in University affairs. Each academic unit shall submit a list of active emeriti to the University annually. Ellen Mitchell suggested that the list should be submitted on a particular date each year -- say, on or before 30 September. The Council expressed substantial agreement with this idea. This amendment fits into page 5 of the main body of the Handbook. It was moved (George Schipporeit) and seconded (Ken Schug) to make this modification, including the specific date for submission; the amendment passed unanimously.
2. Responsibilities of the UniFC: Phil Troyk has recommended a reordering of the wording in Appendix A, Article VI, paragraph 5. His wording makes it clear so that the word "coordinate" applies only to the academic programs. After some discussions of other parts of that same paragraph, Ralph Brill moved approval of this change; George Schipporeit seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously.
3. Sabbatical leaves: Phil has proposed a tightening of the language on p.22 of the main document (Section VIII, part A, paragraphs 1 and 2). Phil moved these changes; Andy Howard seconded, and the changes were approved unanimously.
4. Committees on Promotion and Tenure

   Under the current system, faculty members under consideration for tenure or promotion must undergo scrutiny at three levels: an academic-unit Committee on Promotions and Tenure (AUCOPT), a campus COPT, and a university COPT. With the abolition of the campus system, the intermediate level is disappearing. Meanwhile, several people, including the Provost, have expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the information submitted in support of, or in opposition to, proposals for tenure or promotion. In many instances the middle-level COPTs have needed to analyze the actual qualifications of the candidates rather than simply ensuring that procedure was followed at the AUCOPT level. This has led to a concern that the disappearance of the middle level will make it more difficult to maintain the quality of the process. The options before the University are (1) to restore a middle level, perhaps at the College and Institute level; (2) explicitly charge the University COPT with these quality-control responsibilities; or (3) leave the system in the form set forth in the proposed handbook in the main document and Appendix C. A lengthy discussion ensued, including the following observations:

   • Ralph Brill suggested the incorporation of non-members of the academic unit in the AUCOPT.
   • Mary Anne Smith observed that the three-level system prevents a single personality from the candidate's academic unit from dominating the discussion. She suggested strengthening the language defining the responsibilities of AUCOPT and UCOPT.
   • Ralph Brill suggested that it is difficult to separate peer review from analysis of procedure at the higher level COPTs.
   • Glenn Broadhead pointed out that the American Association of University Professors argue that peer review for promotions and tenure should be limited to the academic-unit level. Secretary's note: I have searched the AAUP website for confirmation of Glenn's assertion, and have been unsuccessful.
   • Mary Anne Smith pointed out that the system that has evolved at the UCOPT level, in which an advocate for the candidate speaks in front of the UCOPT, is not institutionalized in the current system. The current wording (Appendix C) says that UCOPT will consist of 11 members -- one each from the seven colleges, institutes, and schools, and four additional members. Additional members would be appointed from large academic units.
   • Geoff Williamson said that the only straightforward options are to keep the 11-member system or to expand UCOPT to 18 members, so that each academic unit would in fact be represented.

   After the discussion it was moved (Andy Howard) and seconded (seconder unrecorded) that the language in Appendix C defining the membership of UCOPT be retained, and that a committee be established to analyze the COPT system further. The motion passed unanimously, and Ken Schug agreed to organize this committee.

5. Curricular changes:
   Phil Troyk recommended tightening the language in Appendix P, Section D, paragraph 2, regarding action by the University Faculty Council on changes in curricula. He asked for a modification under which the language setting forth the UniFC's responsibility to solicit comments from relevant academic units is cleaned up. It was moved (Phil Troyk) and seconded (George Schipporeit) to adopt this change; the motion passed unanmimously.
6. Descriptions of Category II Faculty types:
   This is understood to be an important issue, and one which will require more discussion than could be accommodated in the remaining meeting time, so after a brief discussion, this issue was tabled until the next meeting.
7. Overall approval
   Based on the general agreement that the committee's work has been successful, and that with minor modification the proposed Faculty Handbook is now in a functional form, the University Faculty Council voted on approving the entire handbook, as amended above, and with the understanding that minor modifications would be made in the ensuing months, e.g. the Category II faculty definitions. Phil Troyk moved approval of the document, and Ralph Brill seconded; the motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 2:05pm.