General Faculty Organization

General Faculty Organization: 12/07/1999

Guests:
M. Coney, S. Olswang, G. Philipsen

The GFO Chair, Cherry Banks, called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.

Approval of the minutes postponed: A quorum was not present, so the minutes from the last meeting will be discussed at the January 2000 meeting.

Chancellor's Report: Chancellor Buck shared his perspectives on the connection between the revisions to Chapter 24 of the Faculty Code and the UWB visioning process and encouraged the faculty to keep both processes in mind.

Committee Reports

Andrea Kovalesky, Chair, Academic Affairs

There has been a decrease in student petitions because of the new policy allowing advisors to handle more decisions. The Academic Integrity Policy will be ready for final GFO review and vote in January.

Dan Jacoby, Chair, Faculty Affairs

This committee will be considering a University-mandated procedure for reorganization, consolidation and elimination of programs (RCEP). They will also be reexamining the procedures related to the teaching award.

 

Chuck Jackels, Honors and Ceremonies

The Honors and Ceremonies Committee was not able to secure any of the people the faculty recommended for commencement speaker. They are now looking at more local people who have a close tie with people at UWB. Chancellor Buck is working on that list of people at the present time, and they hope to have a speaker named by the next faculty meeting.

Chapter 24, Faculty Code: Discussion Forum

Mary Coney, Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate, Steve Olswang, Vice Provost and Gerry Philpsen, Chair of the Faculty Senate provided background information on the history and contents of Chapter 24 of the Faculty Code.

Cherry Banks indicated that the GFO would like to provide a forum for sharing information about Chapter 24 and how to implement it. Information regarding this was sent to each faculty member with a cover letter from Jack Meszaros on behalf of the Executive Committee of the GFO. A web-based forum for discussion, which will also be used for future issues, is being created. In the meantime, a form will be sent to each faculty asking for their input regarding Chapter 24. Cherry indicated she would appreciate their comments by next week. (Subsequently, it was decided that faculty comments would be gathered using the new GFO Web discussion page.)

Gerry Philpsen reported that in 1998 the Provost appointed several ad hoc committees to review rewards and responsibilities of the faculty and faculty salary policies. This was motivated by increasing pressure from the Board of Regents and other interested groups. Questions related to faculty participation in governance, as well as how the University determines faculty salaries and how faculty raises are decided were explored by the Regents, faculty senate and administration. Two ad hoc committees worked through the summer of 1998 to develop a set of legislative proposals to revise Chapter 24 of the faculty code. The revisions to Chapter 24 were approved by the faculty and Professor Philpsen stated that the faculty senate believes the changes to Chapter 24 represent a great successfor the faculty to govern themselves better.

 

Steve Olswang reported that President McCormick has indicated that the first priority for funding will be to reward faculty who have meritorious performance. This salary category will be funded regardless of whether or not adequate funding is obtained from the legislature. Dr. Olswang acknowledged that this could impact the funds available for new hires.

Regarding questions about what represented a unit at UWB, Dr. Olswang stated that whenever "college," is mentioned in Chapter 24, for our purposes it means the entire campus. When "department" or "unit" is referred to it is the same as "program" here.

By spring each program should have to adopted a procedure for evaluating full professors. Each program will also need to develop a policy, as soon as possible on how retention offers will be handled. The university will not be able to respond to retention offers unless these policies are in place and followed. All faculty members must participate in determining these processes. An executive order detailing implementation of Chapter 24 is being prepared. Bothell’s GFO will be commenting on the draft. Copies of the executive order will be distributed to the faculty..

Mary Cony indicated that this fall a new Class "A" legislation is being considered regarding Procedures for Promotions, Volume Two, Part II, Chapter 24, Section 5. This proposal gives the faculty member more responsibility in compiling data for promotion considerations and provides the faculty member more feedback on the results of the deliberations for promotion. A copy of these proposed revisions was distributed. This legislation also gives faculty members an opportunity to correct inaccuracies in the promotion process. The proposed legislation also outlines new grievance procedures for faculty members being considered for promotion. Professor Coney asked the faculty to review the document and send comments to her at her e-mail address: mconey@u.washington.edu. Steve Olswang mentioned that the external letters of review and various committee or department head letters regarding promotion are not public records. The proposed legislation also outlines new grievance procedures for the faculty membesr being considered for promotion.

Steven Olswang stressed that the Faculty Code governs all University of Washington faculty and prevails over the UWB Handbook and all other documents.

Cherry Banks reported that the next meeting of the GFO would be January 11. Kevin Laverty will make a presentation as

the recipient of the 1999 Distinguished Teaching Award.. In addition, new faculty members will give brief presentations explaining their research and teaching interests.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Minutes submitted by Patti Bellecy