You are here

Home » Meetings » Meeting Minutes » Meeting Minutes 2022

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes September 21, 2022

University of Louisiana at Lafayette Faculty Senate
Draft Minutes, Wednesday, September 21, 2022, Zoom Meeting
Presiding: Philip Auter, Secretary: Clai Rice

I. Call to Order
  • 4:03
II. Quorum Call
  • About 59 members attending.
III. Agenda Approval (P. Auter)
  • No opposed or abstain.
IV. Minutes Approval (C. Parker, I. Berkeley)
  • April minutes approved unanimously.
V. Meeting Schedule for AY22-23 (J. DeRouen, D. Baker)
  • None opposed. Meeting schedule is approved and will be posted to Moodle.
VI. Vote for person to complete the VP term of J. Maloy
  • Nominated are D. Khey and L. Orr. Orr wins on first ballot.
VII. Welcome and Report from Executive Officer (P. Auter)
  • Full report is available on Moodle.
  • All proposed policies will now pass through the FS for comment.
VIII. Committee Reports
  • Faculty Senate Committees
    • Standing Committees:
      • Committee on Committees: J. DeRouen
        • Assembled VP slate
        • University Committees slate–check on Moodle if you want to serve
    • Ad Hoc Committees –
      • Ad Hoc Committee on Underrepresented Groups – short report from A. Abington-Pitre
      • Tenure and Promotion –
        • A survey is available, please fill it out.
        • P. Auter–we learned that policies trump handbooks, so handbooks need to reflect policies accurately.
        • Policies can be found on the policy page at the Academic Affairs website.
        • Currently some hiring policies refer to an extinct staff handbook.
  • University Committees
    • Student Evaluation of Instruction Committee–report on Moodle.
IX. Old Business –
  • Faculty Senate Constitution Amendment (P. Auter).
    • Maloy’s amendment is tabled for discussion as uncertainty remains about the status of the handbook.
X. New Business
  • Concern was noted regarding the Turning Points speaker slated for later October.
XI. Announcements
XII. Adjournment
  • 5:31 (D. Baker, S. Jordan)

Submitted by Clai Rice
Oct 11, 2022

Appendix 1

A Call to Reaffirm Protections of Academic Freedom and Tenure

Sponsored by the Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates (ALFS)1

Whereas the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) states “the principal purpose of tenure is to safeguard academic freedom, which is necessary for all who teach and conduct research in higher education. When faculty members can lose their positions because of their speech, publications, or research findings, they cannot properly fulfill their core responsibilities to advance and transmit knowledge. Tenure provides the conditions for faculty to pursue research and innovation and draw evidence-based conclusions free from corporate or political pressure”2; and

Whereas academic freedom protections are granted by policy statements at all Louisiana universities, which view academic freedom as necessary for the pursuit of answers to difficult and perplexing questions regularly investigated without fear of retribution within a university setting and which also view such freedom as having a positive influence on all aspects of the university, including, but not limited to teaching, research, and university governance; and

Whereas faculty remain accountable for their post-tenure performance through polices outlined by policy statements at all Louisiana universities, which also guarantee that these review processes are conducted fairly; and

Whereas efforts to weaken or remove the protections afforded by tenure elicit a strong negative response from individual scholars and associations representing them, reducing the ability of institutions engaged in these changes to recruit and retain a world-class faculty:

Therefore, be it resolved that the Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates reaffirms its commitment to robust tenure protections, recognizing that they are a necessary condition for the university to fulfill its mission in conducting teaching and research, which improves the lives of the public it serves;

Therefore, be it further resolved that the Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates strongly discourages any efforts that would diminish tenure because such efforts would weaken the standing of Louisiana higher education locally, nationally, and globally and would create incentive for current faculty to seek employment at universities, which do provide strong tenure protection and would decrease the state’s competitiveness in attracting the world-class talent that has traditionally contributed to the success of Louisiana.

________________________________
1 Based on a resolution of the LSU Faculty Senate https://lsu.edu/senate/resolutions/fsresolutions/resolution22-06firstrea...

2 See the AAUP statement https://www.aaup.org/issues/tenure#:~:text=The%20AAUP%27s%20report%20on%....

Appendix 2

Proposed Revisions to the Faculty Senate Constitution

[Deleted text is struck through, and insertions are in red text.]

Article V, Section 1

The Faculty Senate has a special interest in the University committees listed in this article. The Curriculum Committee, Faculty Grievance Committee, Faculty Benefits and Welfare Committee, Library Committee, Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards, and Student Evaluation of Instruction Committee are slated by the Senate. These committees are discussed in Section 2. The activities of four the following additional committees - Campus Planning Committee, General Education Committee, Distance Learning Leadership Council, Diversity Advisory Committee, University Assessment Council, Innovation and Research Advisory Council, Institutional Review Board, and Strategic Program Review Committee – are also of particular interest to the Senate. These committees are discussed in section 3.

Article V, Section 3

Diversity Advisory Committee
The Diversity Advisory Committee (DAC) exists to stand for the various constituents, whose interests the Office for Campus Diversity (OCD) serves, by providing guidance, direction, support, and monitoring the effectiveness of the office. Reports directly to the President.

University Assessment Council
The University Assessment Council (UAC) supports the process of research-based, ongoing, integrated, institution-wide systematic planning, evaluation, and continuous improvement across the campus. Reporting to the Assistant Vice President for Institutional Planning and Effectiveness, its primary function is in an advisory/supportive ability to academic programs, service/support departments, and all other institutional units with respect to the assessment process. Therefore, the UAC: (a) provides assistance and consultation in formulating and implementing assessment plans; (b) annually reviews assessment documents submitted and provides feedback for improvement purposes, (c) assists in the development, deployment and maintenance of Institutional Effectiveness policies and documents, and (d) provides an annual report to the President, Provost and University Council describing strengths and weaknesses of the University's overall effort in assessment and institutional effectiveness. Reports directly to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs or appointed Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Innovation and Research Advisory Council
The mission of the Innovation and Research Advisory Council (IRAC) is to engage members of the research community at UL Lafayette and its administration to enhance the University's research enterprise. The IRAC shall serve as an advisory body to the Vice President of Research on matters on the development of research and innovation at UL Lafayette and advising the University leadership on policies and procedures to achieve the strategic vision of UL Lafayette. Reports directly to the Vice President for Research, Innovation and Economic Development.

Institutional Review Board
The purpose of this committee is to work in recognition of the institution's responsibility to assure the protection of any human subjects in research. Prior review of research using human participants is conducted to a) assure informed consent; b) assure confidentiality of data; c) classify risk and assure required safeguards. The IRB also keeps up with Federal standards for research with human participants to assure awareness of these standards in the academic community. Reports directly to the Vice President for Research, Innovation and Economic Development.

Appendix 3

Proposed Revision to Faculty Handbook

Submitted by M. Green, March 14, 2022; additional changes proposed by Faculty Senate Ways and Means Committee, April 08, 2022.

Proposed revision in the Faculty Handbook, I, Section V. Faculty Personnel Policies, Performance Evaluation and Merit Pay, Pg. 10: https://academicaffairs.louisiana.edu/sites/academicaffairs/files/Sectio...

PROPOSED PARAGRAPHS (Deleted text is struck through, inserted text in RED):

The University conducts an annual performance evaluation which rates a faculty member's performance. A faculty member’s department head or immediate supervisor, sometimes with the assistance of a departmental personnel committee, evaluates that person’s performance in the areas of teaching, research and professional activities, and university and community service based on college and/or departmentally created evaluation rubrics. The department head’s evaluation is ultimately reviewed by the dean of the college and by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, both of whom may adjust the faculty member’s overall evaluation relative to other members of the college or the University.

The faculty within each college and/or department are responsible for creating rubrics for use in annual merit performance evaluations, subject to their dean’s approval. Rubrics may be revised by faculty annually with effective date of the following calendar year. The evaluation instrument, which a faculty member completes at the beginning of the calendar year, summarizes their activities for the preceding calendar year. Faculty members are judged on the basis of their overall merit in all activity areas.

Rating Scale (to be used in conjunction with college and/or departmental rubrics)

  • 5 = Exceptional—distinction, extraordinary productivity/performance beyond annual expectations
  • 4 = Exceeds expectations—high quality, performance/productivity that can be sustained annually
  • 3 = Meets expectations—quality, performance/productivity can be strengthened and sustained annually
  • 2 = Needs Improvement—requires improvement in one or more areas
  • 1 = Unsatisfactory performance—requires significant improvement in one or more areas

Rating below a two (2) twice in any consecutive three-year period indicates continuing serious problems that must be addressed by the faculty member, the department head, and the dean. A faculty member rated below a two (2) two consecutive years or three times in a five-year period is subject to a formal remediation process, as delineated in Remediation Procedures for UL Lafayette Personnel with Category V Merit Evaluations (Document XXXV in the Faculty Handbook).

Merit-based salary increases awarded by the University are based on these evaluations and are generally awarded at the beginning of the academic year. However, the dollar amount of the raises cannot be set until the Legislature allocates funds to higher education (usually in the Summer) and the Board of Supervisors approves the University’s proposed operating budget (usually in August).

Appendix 4

Proposed Revision to Faculty Handbook

Due to the current display of the Faculty Handbook on the Academic Affairs website, we move that the document titled "Procedure for Making Changes in the Faculty Handbook" be added to the Faculty Handbook as Section IX, and that the document titled "Faculty Handbook Change Log" be added as Appendix C to the Faculty Handbook and be updated every time a change is made to the handbook.

Appendix 5

Proposed Revision to Faculty Handbook

Submitted by J. Maloy, who proposes to add a new section to the Faculty Handbook:

SECTION IX. HANDBOOK AMENDMENT

  1. The University President, as delegate of the University of Louisiana system (Board of Supervisors), has final authority over the Faculty Handbook.
  2. The approval of both Faculty Senate and the Provost is required for any amendment to the Faculty Handbook.
  3. Proposals for amendment may originate with the Provost or with Faculty Senate.
  4. A proposal from the Provost must be communicated to the Faculty Senate, in writing, through the President of Faculty Senate. A proposal from Faculty Senate must be communicated to the Provost, in writing, through the President of Faculty Senate, after having been duly considered and approved by that body under its own rules of procedure.
  5. When the Provost proposes an amendment to Faculty Senate, or proposes a change to an amendment previously offered by Faculty Senate, the approval of Faculty Senate may not be given until the first regularly scheduled meeting after the meeting at which the amendment, or the proposed change thereto, was introduced.
  6. When the Provost proposes an amendment, or proposes a change to an amendment previously offered, Faculty Senate must provide either formal approval or some other written response within 60 days after the next regularly scheduled Faculty Senate meeting. When Faculty Senate proposes an amendment, or proposes a change to an amendment previously offered, the Provost must provide either formal approval or some other written response within 30 days.
  7. When the party offering an amendment does not accept the changes proposed by a party responding to the initial offer, a conference committee must be formed for the purpose of seeking resolution of differences. The conference committee shall be composed of three members of Faculty Senate appointed according to its own rules of procedure, plus as many additional persons (not exceeding three) as the Provost chooses to designate. The conference committee shall issue a final, joint proposal for amending the Faculty Handbook. The conference committee shall issue its proposal within 60 days after the regularly scheduled meeting of Faculty Senate which follows the formation of the conference committee. The Provost and Faculty Senate must both indicate approval or disapproval of the final proposal within 30 days after the regularly scheduled meeting of Faculty Senate which follows the issuance of the conference committee’s proposal.
  8. If the Provost proposes an amendment that is required by a change in federal law, state law, or University of Louisiana system (Board of Supervisors) policy, a full explanation of the source and legality of the amendment must accompany that proposal.
  9. If the University President approves an amendment to the Faculty Handbook which the Faculty Senate has not formally approved, Faculty Senate may formulate a brief statement of the reasons for its disapproval under its own rules of procedure. If it does so, and communicates such statement of disapproval to the Provost, such statement shall be added to an appendix of the Faculty Handbook.

Appendix 6

Faculty Senate Constitution Amendment

[Proposal by J. Maloy to replace the current Article VII with the following.]

Article VII. SPECIAL ACTIONS OF FACULTY SENATE

  1. Special actions of Faculty Senate include amendments of this Constitution, amendments of the Faculty Handbook, and proposals for University policy change.
  2. Amendments of this Constitution. An amendment of or addition to any part of this Constitution must be introduced at one meeting and approved at the next meeting. No more than one of these consecutive meetings may be a special meeting, and the second of these meetings must take place no fewer than twenty (20) days after the first. Final approval must be given by the votes of at least two thirds of those present.
  3. Amendments of the Faculty Handbook. A resolution by Faculty Senate to amend the Faculty Handbook of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, or to respond to proposals for amendment originating outside Faculty Senate, must be introduced at one meeting and approved at the next meeting. No more than one of these consecutive meetings may be a special meeting, and the second of these meetings must take place no fewer than twenty (20) days after the first. The Ways and Means Committee of Faculty Senate must issue an initial recommendation concerning any previously introduced amendment of the Handbook, and this recommendation must be communicated to the entire active membership at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which that amendment is first put to a vote.
  4. Proposals for University Policy Change. Faculty Senate may authorize the President of Faculty Senate to make proposals to change existing University policies, or to add new ones, to the Provost on matters that affect faculty members as a whole. Though the University’s Policy on Policies provides no formal role for Faculty Senate in the process of policy change, the President of Faculty Senate shall not initiate any such proposal unless it has followed the same procedure of introduction and approval by Faculty Senate as the procedure indicated for amendments to the Faculty Handbook (see Art. VII, Sec. 3).

JUSTIFICATIONS [these are not part of the text of the proposed amendment]

  1. Handbook amendments and University policies are important tools, and Faculty Senate should formalize, and retain control over, its participation in such processes.
  2. Putting our internal procedures relating to Handbook amendments [sec. 3 above] in our Constitution enables the Handbook itself to contain a more streamlined procedure. The role of Ways & Means is substantially the same here as under the current procedure, in the 4-page document that currently exists outside our Constitution.
  3. Current procedures for amending our Constitution require two consecutive *regular* meetings, but allowing one [and only one] *special* meeting to be called in addition to one regular meeting would give us greater flexibility on end-of-semester issues.
  4. Requiring two meetings to be spaced 20 days apart ensures against rushing something through without adequate time for faculty members to weigh the issues.