Report to the Academic Senate–Activities of the Faculty Affairs Committee

Spring 2001–Fall 2001 (Emphasizing the latter semester)

The issues which were before the Committee at the start of the semester are summarized in table form in the Appendix to this report. Issue 1-00-16 was removed from the Faculty Affairs Committee’s agenda because it was erroneously placed. The issue was much more relevant to the Student Academic Policy and Academic Policy Committees were than to the Faculty Affairs Committee. Of the remaining issues on the list, there were new developments with respect to only three of them.

With respect to Issue 1-98-24, Evaluation on Non-Academic Administrators in their Academic Support Roles, the Faculty Affairs Committee was pleased to learn the Dr. William C. Schuerman, Vice President for Student Development and Dean of Students, and Thomas S. Danford, Associate Provost and Chief Information Officer, have expressed a willingness to serve personally on the special committee of administrators, faculty and students called for by the Faculty Handbook. The Faculty Affairs Committee will seek volunteers for the special committee from among the faculty and student members of the Senate after it is reconstituted in January 2002.

With respect to Issue 1-01-3, Full Time and Part Time Instructional Staff Guidelines, the Faculty Affairs Committee has held several far ranging discussions. No consensus has been reached except that the sense of the Committee seems to be that many of the American Association of University Professors standards on the topic probably could not be implemented at the University of Dayton without unacceptable costs to the University and its current full time faculty.

With respect to Issue 1-01-4, Proper Use of Student Assessment of Instruction of Faculty, the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee has been charged with gathering all current University and Unit policies which impact on the issue so the Committee can continue its consideration.

During the above time period the Faculty Affairs Committee has actively considered three new issues which are not included on the appended list.

First, the Faculty Affairs Committee unanimously asked the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate to change its policy with respect voting by full time faculty members who are on leave or sabbatical on amendments to the Constitution of the Academic Senate. Under the current policy of the Executive Committee such faculty members are prohibited from voting on proposed amendments. The policy is rooted in the requirement that in order for any amendment to the Constitution to be ratified, an absolute majority of eligible full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members cast ballots in the ratification vote. The Executive Committee believed that making faculty on leave or sabbatical eligible would exacerbate the sometimes vexing problem of getting an absolute majority of eligible faculty to participate in voting on amendments to the Constitution.

The Faculty Affairs Committee respectfully disagreed with the Executive Committee’s policy and has asked the ECAS to rescind the policy so as to make full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty on sabbatical or leave of absence eligible to vote in elections to ratify amendments to the Constitution. The Faculty Affairs Committee has developed a proposed form letter which would allow faculty members on leave or sabbatical to eschew voting, but still be counted toward the required voting quorum by casting, in advance, a vote of "abstain" on all amendments which come up for ratification during their absence. Alternatively the faculty member may continue to receive ballots on constitutional amendments and have their vote counted toward the quorum if they choose to cast their ballot or not counted if they choose not to cast their ballot.

The proposal by the Faculty Affairs Committee will be presented to the ECAS as it is reconstituted in January 2002.

The second new issue the Faculty Affairs Committee considered was a request by the Office of Human Services to support a change in the Tuition Exchange Program. Currently, the language of the Tuition Exchange Program seems to suggest that if a family has two employees who are eligible to take advantage of the Program, and a child of that family receives benefits from that Program, both employees are sent "to the back of the line", a development which would adversely affect the ability of the employees to obtain benefits through the Program for a second child. The Office of Human Resources has asked the Senate’s support to amend the Tuition Exchange Program to make clear that if a family has more than one member eligible to take advantage of the Program, the receipt of benefits by one child in the family will only effect the eligibility of one of the employees, not both of them. The Faculty Affairs Committee unanimously approved the efforts of the Office of Human Resources on this issue and has passed a resolution of support which will be brought before the full Senate early next semester.

The third new issue to which the Faculty Affairs Committee gave consideration was a suggestion by the Office of the Provost that the Senate consider whether to recommend allowing tenure-track faculty members to extend, at the faculty member’s option, the current seven-year period for obtaining tenure. The current seven-year period is specified by applicable standards of the American Association of University Professors. The Committee reached the conclusion that some justifications for a voluntary extension as a matter of right were strong, others were debatable and still others were without merit. The Committee decided proceed in a series of steps to develop a recommendation for a policy allowing voluntary extensions as a matter of right. The first step was to formulate a recommendation to allow a right of voluntary extension under the circumstances which the Committee viewed as presenting the strongest case for such a right–where a faculty member’s seven-year period was interrupted for medical or family care reasons. The Committee is currently working on such a recommendation. In all likelihood, the Committee will continue to develop its recommendation this Spring and will have a proposal for the Senate on the subject by Fall 2002 semester, if not earlier.

Respectfully submitted,