Senate Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
May 1, 2007
Dr. Kuei-wu Tsai met with the Senators before the meeting began to discuss several issues including advising. After a concern was raised that “off track” students needed more flexibility, Dr. Tsai explained that the system is flexible, that every student must see his or her advisor before registering, according to the “good practices of their department.” In other words, various types of meeting, individual or small group might be used but students will need to meet with their advisors. Some discussion followed of a password-based system that might be implemented in the fall semester.
Another discussion, of the “professional day” followed. Dr. Tsai explained that “the President and Provost, in principle, are for this but it is not intended to be a free day.”
The Provost wants Department Heads to expect some show of accountability. “A professional day tries to provide a block of time to accomplish faculty tasks, grading, course preparation, research.”
Dr. Tsai also announced two new appointments:
Joan E. Dolamore to the position of Dean of Lifelong Learning for the Division of Professional and Continuing Studies (DPCS)
Dr. Craig D. Capano to department head for the Department of Civil, Construction and Environment.
The Provost thanked the senators for their service and expressed his pleasure at working with the Faculty Senate throughout the academic year.
The regular Senate meeting began at approximately 3 p.mI
Present and Voting were: Mike Greene, David Brothers, Lenny Anderson, Tom Taddeo, Anita Penta, Ann Pitt, Garrick Goldenburg, Ali Khabari, Joe Santacroce, Magdy Ellabidy, Siben Dasgupta, Chris Gleason, George Chedid, Jon Ripley, Durga Suresh, Tom Lesko, Herb Fremin, Robert Moran, Peter Rourke.
Item One: The minutes of the previous meeting, April, were approved.
Item Two: Tom Lesko said that each department should have a voluntary committee to work with new faculty and provide advice to the Department Head on continuing employment.
Item Three: Joe Santacroce agreed to serve as the Senate representative on the scheduling committee. Having a Senate representative on the scheduling committee, that is made up of the department heads and the registrar was suggested by the Provost during a meeting with the Executive Committee earlier in the semester.
Item Four: The senate discussed the process by which senators are elected by fellow faculty in their departments. After it was determined that different departments had differing procedures, Peter Rourke and Michael Greene agreed to provide a draft proposal to the Senate in the fall semester.
Item Five: The last item for this meeting generated a great deal of discussion, text changes, and revisions, many of them informally offered and accepted by the group. It should be noted that this resolution came to the Faculty Senate in January of 2007 and has been through many, many revisions. The resolution that appears here is the one that was finally brought before the Senate and voted on.
A motion was made and seconded
“WENTWORTH FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION ON
PROCEDURE FOR FACULTY VOTE ON DEPARTMENT HEAD:
WHEREAS the faculty and their Senate have fundamental responsibilities in the areas of curriculum development, academic facilities, pedagogy, academic support services (ARTICLE IV-Section 2 of the Senate Bylaws), Institute and/or Academic Governance directly or indirectly affecting students and faculty (ARTICLE IV-Section 3 of the Senate Bylaws); and whereas all those areas may be affected by a department head’s conduct and decisions.
WHEREAS no single decision by a department head is likely to make or break a department, the cumulative impact of decisions is what drives quality of education, the morale and the productivity of faculty, and the vitality of the department. Accumulation of adverse decisions and conduct by a department head could lead to a loss of confidence by the faculty in the department head and to the department becoming dysfunctional.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1-In order to trigger an action by the Senate on a “vote of no confidence” in the department head, a minimum one third of “Permanent” faculty members from a particular department must request that a member of the Senate observe the vote. Alternatively, in order to trigger an action by the Senate on a “vote of no confidence” in the department head, the majority of the elected senators from the department in question must request that the Senate observe the vote. The request may be made to the Senate President, the executive committee, or the full Senate. The Senate shall consider the request of the concerned faculty members as a legitimate faculty activity that should be protected, and the identity of the faculty members shall be kept anonymous by the Senate if those faculty members so request.
2-The member of the Senate, not a member of that department, is appointed by the Senate Chairperson to observe the faculty vote, facilitated by the concerned faculty, within two weeks of the faculty request during the academic year. A quorum of more than one half of the department’s faculty members must be present in order for the vote to take place.
3-If more than half of the department’s faculty members have voted for “No Confidence” in the department head, the Senate shall at once ask the Provost to conduct a thorough investigation and undertake the necessary corrective measures to safeguard the quality of education and the well being of all stakeholders in the affected department. The Senate shall ask to be apprised of the outcome of the investigation and the resulting corrective measures.”
This motion was vigorously debated for some time and then passed 13 in favor and 2 against.
A motion was made to adjourn at approximately 5:20 p.m.