Meeting of the Main Campus Executive Faculty
January 27, 2006
APPROVED MINUTES
Present: George Benke, Tim Beach, Dorothy Betz, Dan Byman, Heidi Byrnes, Robert Cumby, Wayne Davis, David Goldfrank, Svetlana Grenier, Ellen Henderson, Elena Herburger, Alison Hilton, K. Travis Holma (substitute for Miklos Kertesz), Michael Hudson, Harvey Iglarsh, Catherine Keesling, Olga Khessina, John Kline, Alison Mackey, Sam Marullo, Wes Mathews, Diana Owen, Jeff Peck, Terrence Reynolds, Veronica Salles-Reese (representing herself and substitute for Arturo Valenzuela), Clay Shields, Pierre Taminiaux, Scott Taylor (substitute for Gwendolyn Mikell), Susan Vroman, Holger Wolf (representing himself and substitute for Jeff Anderson)
Visitors: Tom Cooke, Faculty Chair, Georgetown University Honor Council; Sonia Jacobson, Georgetown University Honor Council; David Morrell, Vice President, University Safety
- Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 1:17 pm.
- Approval of Minutes:
Motion 1: That the minutes for the meeting of November 18, 2005 be approved as amended.
Motion 1 passed: 21 in favor, 0 opposed, and 5 abstaining
- Annual Report of the Honor Council: Tom Cooke:
The Chair introduced Tom Cooke, the Faculty Chair of the Georgetown University Honor Council. Tom Cooke presented the Honor Council’s annual report to the Executive Faculty. Please see the attached Annual Report of the Honor Council for details.
In response to the report, the Executive Faculty expressed concern for two types of inconsistency associated with the Honor Council: 1) inconsistency between guidelines and outcomes, and 2) inconsistency in sanctions administered to violators of the same offence. In addition, the Executive Faculty voiced its concern for faculty who have begun to doubt the system after investing significant time in preparing several cases only to see “relatively minor” or “inconsistent” sanctions issued in these cases. At the same time, the Executive Faculty recognized that some of these concerns might be unwarranted since mitigating factors in student sanctioning cannot be made public.
Tom Cooke concluded by offering his support for an amendment to the language regarding Honor Council membership that would allow non-tenure-line as well as tenure-line faculty to serve on the Honor Council.
IV.Campus Security: David Morrell:
The Chair introduced David Morrell, the Vice President for University Safety. David Morrell explained that University Safety is in the process of upgrading the “call boxes” strategically located around campus. He asked members of the Executive Faculty to offer suggestions regarding where additional “call boxes” should be placed in locations where they do not currently exist. In addition, Dave Morrell encouraged members of the Executive Faculty to discuss this matter with other faculty in their departments and to feel free to contact him regarding recommendations for “call box” locations or regarding any other security concerns.
V.Honor Council Faculty Membership:
The Chair explained that the current faculty representation on the Honor Council is governed by the following paragraph:
5. The Faculty Assembly
As few as four and as many as six members of the ordinary faculty of each of the four undergraduate schools shall be nominated by their Dean and appointed to the Honor Council by the Provost in staggered two-year terms for a total of between sixteen and twenty-four faculty members, inclusive. Two of the faculty from each undergraduate school shall be designated investigating officers by their respective deans. The Faculty Assembly shall select four members (including the Faculty Chair), one per undergraduate school, to serve on the Executive Committee. All faculty members may serve on hearing boards.
The Chair further asserted that it has been fairly common practice for full-time, non-tenure-line faculty to serve. In addition, there have been times when more than six members of the College faculty have served. After discussing the need to bring practice and the governing document into agreement, the Steering Committee recommended the following changes:
- Delete “ordinary” from the first sentence.
- Delete “and as many as six” from the first sentence and begin with “At least four.”
- Insert “At no time shall members of the faculty represent less than half of the faculty members.” after “inclusive.”
At this point, the Chair opened up the floor to discussion.
David Goldfrank suggested that the system might be improved if the burden of faculty membership was shared among a greater number of individuals serving short mandatory terms.
Dorothy Betz responded by suggesting that voluntary faculty membership helps to prevent resentment by those individuals who view serving on the Honor Council as burdensome from influencing the decisions of the Honor Council.
Heidi Byrnes added that regular voluntary faculty members to the Honor Council are vital to maintaining consistency of the council’s decisions—an area which has already been identified as problematic.
The Chair entertained a friendly amendment to proposed change # 2: amending “At least four” to “At least four members of the full-time faculty.”
1)Motion 2: That the by-laws of the Honor Council be amended so that the section concerning membership in the Faculty Assembly read as follows.
5. The Faculty Assembly
At least four full-time members of the faculty of each of the four undergraduate schools shall be nominated by their Dean and appointed to the Honor Council by the Provost in staggered two-year terms for a total of between sixteen and twenty-four faculty members, inclusive. At no time shall members of the tenure-line faculty represent less than half of the faculty members. Two of the faculty from each undergraduate school shall be designated investigating officers by their respective deans. The Faculty Assembly shall select four members (including the Faculty Chair), one per undergraduate school, to serve on the Executive Committee. All faculty members may serve on hearing boards.
Motion 2 passed: 22 in favor, 2 opposed, 0 abstaining
VI.Creation of Committee to Develop a New Faculty Salary Plan:
The Chair discussed the need for a committee to develop a new faculty salary plan and mentioned that Matthew Canzoneri, Robert Cumby, and Wayne Davis had expressed a willingness to serve on that committee. This led to a motion to create a committee with those three members.
Motion 3: That the Executive Faculty create a committee to develop a new faculty salary plan and that the committee consist of Matthew Canzoneri, Robert Cumby, and Wayne Davis.
Motion 3 passed: 23 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstaining
VII.End-of-Semester Policy:
The Chair explained that each semester for many years, the provost has sent a note reminding the Main Campus faculty about its long-standing policy of not using the last week of class or the study period for final exams, major tests, etc. Some concerns about the clarity of the statement of the end-of-semester policy have arisen and the Steering Committee, working with some draft language proposed by Provost Jim O’Donnell, recommended that the Executive Faculty endorse the following clarification of the end-of-semester policy.
The Academic Calendar assures every student and every faculty member that there will be a predictable amount of time for normal coursework. The period during which classes meet and the study days are to be kept available for that purpose for all courses. As a result, no final assignment (e.g. final examination, due date for final term paper or final project) should occur before the official final examination period begins; and, to assure reasonable schedules and workloads, no final examination should be scheduled during the exam period except through the Registrar. Use of class days or study days for final exams or other final exercises places undue burden on students.
Susan Vroman questioned whether the end-of-semester policy should prohibit faculty from assigning final term papers to be due on the last day of class. She and a few other members expressed an interest in examining that provision more closely before drafting language to clarify the end-of-semester policy.
The Chair explained that the current policy exists as such to ensure that the semester is not cut short. However, he agreed that because of the concern for final term papers, the end-of-semester policy should be discussed in greater depth before adding clarifying language.
Motion 4: That the issue of end-of-semester policy, with particular attention to the subject of final term papers, be discussed in greater depth before being revisited by the Executive Faculty.
Motion 4 passed: 23 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstaining
VIII.Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:04 pm.