Dr. Jim Cobbe provided the following report:
Only two matters in Fall 2005 are worth reporting. First, we finally got our ad hoc committee on non-tenure track faculty off the ground. The group is chaired by a full professor who has administrative experience with dealing with non-tenure track faculty, but who also began his career in that status. The membership is composed of roughly equal numbers of tenured and non-tenure track faculty, and it has a very broad mandate to investigate all issues concerning non-tenure track faculty, including but not limited to policy on appointment, assignments, career structures, and representation, and University strategy with respect to the balance between tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty. Administrative offices have promised cooperation, and detailed data has been requested. The committee’s terms of reference call for an interim report to the Senate on progress at the end of this academic year, and a final report and recommendations during the Fall, 2006, semester.
Second, the collective bargaining agreement between UFF and FSU includes a provision “Faculty members shall be included in the process of recruitment, hiring, and selection or reappointment of those administrators with supervisory responsibility over faculty.” At the first consultation meeting between UFF and University representatives in November, 2005, it was decided to invite the Faculty Senate to recommend procedures for implementation of this provision. The Senate steering committee as a result drafted “Guidelines” to cover these issues. The draft guidelines were distributed to the Senate in December, but apparently the administration had some concerns about ‘statutory issues’ and requested that they not be adopted until the administration had time to respond to the draft. This has not yet happened, but the intent is to ensure that guidelines are adopted by the Senate before the end of the academic year. The draft guidelines are appended to this report, as our terms of reference for the ad hoc committee on non-tenure track faculty.
Addendum 1.
Terms of Reference for ad hoc committee on non-tenure track faculty:
During the past several years the Steering Committee of the Faculty Senate has been concerned with those on our faculty that are serving the institution on non-tenure track contracts. Therefore we determined to establish an ad hoc committee to study this issue.
An ad hoc committee will be appointed to consider all those faculty at FSU who are not in tenure track positions regardless of their assigned responsibilities or fte and provide the following:
1) demographic data regarding the precise number of such persons working at FSU and the extent of their involvement at FSU.
2) an analysis of these positions by how they function within each department or unit, i.e., as teachers, by serving research functions, or by doing other duties necessary to the overall mission of the institution.
3) An analysis of the opportunities and standards for advancement, the career structure, and recognition of merit and achievement for non-tenure track faculty.
We already have a good start on this assignment in that we received a report from a special committee formed by the Office of Research addressing non-tenured research faculty positions. The steering committee, on behalf of the ad hoc committee, will also seek the cooperation of the central administration in respect to obtaining the data referred to in item 1) above; Dean of the Faculties Anne Rowe has already assured us of full cooperation by her office.
The committee will provide a report to the Steering Committee concerning the above with any recommendations the committee determines are appropriate. This could include, but is not necessarily limited to, recommendations concerning policy on the quantitative and qualitative balance between tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty, and policy on representation of non-tenure track faculty and their interests in governance structures at all levels.
The time line suggested by the Steering Committee is for the group to aim for an interim report to be presented to the Faculty Senate at its March 2006 meeting, indicating preliminary findings and the directions the committee is leaning toward; and a final report with conclusions and any recommendations requiring Faculty Senate action to be presented to the Faculty Senate early in the Fall, 2006.
Professor Bob Clark of the
Addendum 2.
DRAFT
Faculty Senate Guidelines for the Recruitment, Hiring, and Selection or
Reappointment of Administrators with Supervisory Responsibility over Faculty
1. General Principles
a. Each faculty member has a professional responsibility to promote the interests of the University, its students, and the public it serves. This responsibility extends to participation in the selection of the University’s administrative officials.
b. Each faculty member must be given a meaningful opportunity to contribute to the recruitment, hiring, selection, or decision to reappoint those administrators responsible for supervising his or her work.
c. Opportunities to participate are meaningful when:
i) The procedures governing the process are transparent and available to all.
ii) Sufficient notice is given and a reasonable amount of time allowed for the collection and consideration of faculty views.
iii) The expression of diverse points of view is actively encouraged.
iv) Reporting about decisions characterizes faculty opinion and explains how it was taken into account.
2. Practices
a. Every department/unit shall include in its bylaws a procedure for selecting its chair that accords with the general principles outlined above.
b. Above the level of the department/unit the normal vehicle for selection of administrators is a formal search committee appointed by the next higher-level authority (i.e., by the Provost for deans, by the President for Provost, by the Board of Trustees for President).
c. The search committees described in 2.b shall include representatives from as broad a range of specific constituencies as is practical. For example, a search for the dean of a small college would include constituencies below the department level, whereas in larger colleges committee members might be required to represent multiple departments. Faculty believe that students and staff should also be represented on search committees.
d. Search committee members have a duty to represent their constituents as well as to exercise their personal judgments. This means specifically:
i) In the recruitment phase (if applicable), the committee shall solicit suggestions from the faculty, even if an outside search firm has been employed.
ii) The committee shall publicize the schedule for interviews and candidate forums well in advance of the events. The schedule shall include several opportunities for faculty-candidate interaction.
iii) The committee shall provide a formal mechanism for communicating both signed and anonymous faculty opinion to the committee. Opinions expressed shall include a specific indication of the faculty member’s degree of interaction with the candidate. Individual communications of opinion may occur via a printed evaluation form, an electronic form, or written evaluations submitted on paper or by e-mail.
iv) The committee has an obligation to report its recommendation and
v) to explain, in general terms, how it arrived at its recommendation(s). Such a report must include all key documents concerning the entire search process, including announcements, procedures, and all evaluation forms.
vi) To increase future participation, faculty shall be informed of how their participation mattered to the outcome.