FPP Revision Background, Rationale, Process

1. FPP RevisionBackground, Rationale, Process Faculty Senate Meeting September 1, 2009

2. Background • September 26, 2005 • Senate discusses the process to review governance documents • November 1, 2005 • Senate forms an Ad Hoc committee to review governance documents • November 17, 2005 • Senate decides to look at the Faculty Bylaws first

3. Background continues • March 8, 2006 • Senate approves Faculty Bylaw changes • September 25, 2006 • Senate breaks up into working groups to review the Faculty Personnel Policy • VP for Academic Affairs meets with Senate on Academic Plan • Spring 2007 Faculty Senate Retreat • Areas of concern in FPP discussed

4. Background continues • Academic Plan 2007-2010 incorporates Goal 8: Review and revision of Faculty Personnel Policy (approved 8/15/07) • 2007-2008 continued work with FPC and Senate • 2008-2009 joint task force of faculty and administration was to be established for the FPP revision

5. Background continues • September 19, 2007 • Senate approves the editorial changes to the FPP that incorporated the school structure and revised Senate structure / function • October 1, 2007 • FPC identified substantive areas of concern within the current FPP. Feedback was elicited from Senators.

6. Background continues • November 15, 2007 • The FPC developed a survey for faculty to identify their preference for prioritizing FPP revisions and survey distributed through Survey Monkey. Results shared with Senate in Spring 2008 • Terms of employment and benefits • Policies and procedures related to work life • Work assignments and quality of work life • Almost 100 faculty responded to survey (n=99)

7. Background continues • March 13, 2008 • Joint task force composition and process discussed by Senate • April 24, 2008 • FPPTF discussed by Senate

8. Background continues • May 21, 2008 Faculty Senate Retreat • FPPTF membership approved • Faculty Personnel Policy Task Force established June 2008 by joint appointment of Dr Flynn and Faculty Senate President

9. Rationale • It’s time to revise the FPP • Last major revision was 12 years ago (Feb. ‘97) • We, as a faculty, have been working on policy revision since Sept. ’05 • When the faculty and the Board of Trustees (BOT) approved the editorial changes to FPP in spring ’07, there was joint agreement that we (faculty / BOT/ administration) should continue to work on major / more substantive changes to FPP

10. Rationale continued • Policy and practice need to be in the same document • When the current version of FPP(devoid of procedure) was approved by the faculty, a detailed procedural manual was to follow – it has not, only portions or select procedures have evolved and are included in the Faculty Handbook, many are still missing • What is significant/substantial?

11. Rationale continued • Our colleagues who are not in tenure track appointments are not represented well in the FPP • Coaches, SHS faculty, lab instructors, and others • A five-year rolling contract is available but there are no clear criteria as to how one can receive it • What about promotion?

12. Process • Faculty Personnel Policy Task Force (FPPTF) began meeting in summer (2008) to review the major issues of concern identified by the faculty, administration and BOT • Input from the Faculty Senate • Input from the whole faculty 2/08 (Survey Monkey) • Input from the BOT / administration

13. Summer 2008 • Overall approach • FPPTF decided to address overriding concepts rather than to look at the individual articles independently • These overriding concepts permeate several articles

14. Summer 2008 • FPPTF as a whole group met with the college attorney • The five faculty members met with faculty attorney • Discussed major areas of concern as group and with each attorney

15. Key concepts that were identified • Need for internal consistency of the document • Clarity on faculty appointment categories for appointment, promotion, evaluation, etc. Need to include all faculty within FPP / one document for all faculty • Clarity on faculty evaluation: process, evaluators, and content • Clarity on appeals, grievances, and mediation • Definition of terms • Clarity on retrenchment, financial exigency and emergency • Need to address issues for retiring faculty

16. 2008-2009 • Fall 2008, FPPTF crafted a preliminary set of concepts • Two faculty meetings held with focus on FPP • Concept paper input (February 2009) • Concept paper was shared with the FPC, Senate • BOT via a phone conference • Faculty via an open meeting

17. 2009 • FPPTF reviewed all the feedback we received over several meetings • Crafted a second version of the concept paper • Incorporating several of the ideas from faculty • Removing the entire evaluation section • April 2009, met with the Faculty Senate • Procedures agreed upon for FPC/Senate/FPPTF communication • Approval of FPC proposal for emeriti faculty • FPPTF shared second draft with faculty, sought input

18. 2009 • FPPTF summer work • Evaluation input • Met with the department chairs at their May retreat • Met with the Deans at their June retreat • Met with the SHS campus directors via phone conference call in July • Formed small working groups within FPPTF to advance our work

19. What next in 2009-2010? • Fall faculty focus groups • Early fall (September/October) • Reports at each Faculty Senate meeting • Continued discussion with FPC over the year • Reports to Board of Trustees at each of their meetings in coming year • Need to reach closure on this task in a • timely fashion: FPC / Senate / • faculty vote / SC Administration / • Board of Trustees

20. Comments