Present: Charlie Brooks, Joan Coffin, Howard Fedrick, Bernie Healey, Jayne Klenner-Moore, Marc Marchese, Jennifer McClinton-Temple, Fred Sauls (Chair), Trent Snider.

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 PM in the Lipo Room.

Minutes from the April21, 2006 Faculty Council Meeting were approved.

Trent Snider (Chair, C & T committee) reported that C & T was finalizing a proposed structure for the revised CORE. Under consideration was the relative size of the CORE. To date the committee has met with CORE Project Team leaders for all but two areas of the present CORE. These meetings and subsequent discussions have led to the proposal of 13 required courses. After meeting with the remaining CORE Project Team leaders the committee will consider proposing up to 4 additional courses, for a total not to exceed 17 required courses.

Fred Sauls presented Council with a revised proposal to extend the professional specialist and academic appointee rolling contracts to three years. The present rolling contract is for two years. Council approved the revision which will be presented to the Board of Directors (appended).

Marc Marchese (Chair, A & P committee) presented a draft of the new Student Travel Fund Policy. As written, the draft covers partial funding for students to attend conferences to present research. Council discussed the inclusion of funding for students to attend other conferences including honor society national meetings. Additional points of discussion included the policy for submitting proposals and the distribution of funding. It was approved after some amendment (appended).

Fred Sauls announced that the faculty evaluations of the AVPAA and the evaluations of department chairs by their respective faculty members should take place before the end of the academic year. In addition, elections for faculty committees will take place during the week of May 8^th.

Faculty Council briefly discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the new governance structure. Among the positive outcomes were the creation of the chair-elect position, improved motivation and performance of committee chairs (both because of their compensation and because they are now elected specifically to chair the committee), division meetings chaired by faculty representatives, and the inclusion of the Faculty Council Chair and Chair-Elect on IPARC.

Fred Sauls presented Council with a list of agenda items to be considered by next year’s Council including a new draft of the revised Constitution, revision of the proposal to convert Professional Specialist rolling contracts to tenure-track contracts, and continued discussion on the revision of the CORE.

Following a sincere thank you from Fred Sauls to Council for a successful year (as well as kudos from Council to Fred) the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 PM.

Submitted by,

Joan Coffin

The professional specialist was created in response to problems:

1. Faculty in the PA program were required by their accrediting body to be issued faculty and not administrative contracts;

2. We sought a way to employ less expensive faculty to teach labs and related courses – essentially, we wanted a way to employ permanent Instructors.

Both classes of faculty had problems related to tenure:

a. The numerical values for the quotas made it impossible to include them under the category of "tenure track".

b. For PA (and later ATEP) faculty, the qualifications for tenure made it improbable that they would meet the criteria as then understood:

(1) There was a strong emphasis on Ph.D.’s as terminal degrees. Even in disciplines where the Ph.D. was nonexistent and a literal reading of the term would accept a Master’s, the thinking was that they should then get a doctorate in a cognate field.

(2) The nature of the discipline meant that traditional scholarly publication was less available to them (not to mention the full-year nature of their commitment).

c. For those we wished to employ as permanent Instructors, the terminal degree and scholarship expectations were simply unrealistic for the rank.

We recognized at the time that the policies we devised were probably imperfect, and would require modification in light of experience.

There are 16 professional specialists, one each in Mathematics, Biology, Criminal Justice, and Education. Most are in the Physician Assistant (5) and Athletic Training (7) programs.

These people are full members of the King’s faculty, with the same responsibilities as any other. In the two programs (PA and ATEP) employing most professional specialist faculty there are no "regular" faculty at all. They have complete responsibility for all aspects of the program.

The differences are:

1. They are promoted according to a parallel set of ranks and criteria. These criteria differ in very minor ways from those for "regular" faculty.

2. They need not have a doctorate, (although the highest degree available within their disciplines is a Master’s).

3. They are not eligible for tenure as professional specialists. The BOD has approved creating a process for transferring to tenure track for them. We are drafting such a policy.

4. Since there is no tenure review, there is no "up or out" hurdle. However, neither is there a requirement that the professional specialist meet the standards for promotion to associate, as do regular faculty.

5. After promotion, professional specialists currently receive a two year rolling contract, as do the academic appointees. Other regular faculty receive tenure.

 

The purposes of the proposed changes are to:

1. Encourage professional specialists to meet the standards for promotion.

The proposed changes apply to faculty who have been at King’s a substantial time. They have been through a rigorous evaluation and met the standards for promotion to Associate. They have met our standards and are people we have decided we want to keep.

We consider it inadvisable to convert these positions wholesale to tenure track. We do believe the changes below will both improve their lot, as well as benefit the College substantially.

Previous versions of this proposal were returned with the instructions to:

(1) Clarify the meaning of "rolling contract". While the term has been previously used in the Handbook describing contracts of Academic Appointees, we have included an explanation here.

(2) Reduce the length of the proposed commitments. We have reduced them from 5 to 4 years. This is far less than a tenure commitment.

(3) Determine the "best practices" in the industry. We have done so (reports included). The summary is that there is no consensus; we are forced to think for ourselves and determine what is best for King’s. This proposal is well within the range of policies at other institutions.

When a Professional Specialist is promoted to Associate Clinical or Technical Professor, the individual will be awarded a 2-year rolling contract.

(to be placed in the Faculty Handbook p. 11 at the end of Part Two, I., C. Professional Specialists)

These faculty shall annually be awarded a rolling two year contract, so that they will be assured of at least a full year’s notice not to reappoint.

Faculty strongly support student research. As limited funding is available, all students are encouraged, in consultation with their faculty advisor and/or department chair, to take the initiative in submitting proposals.

Faculty members who know of students planning to participate in upcoming conferences should alert the Associate Vice-President for Academic Affairs (hereinafter referred to as AVPAA) as early as possible each semester about forthcoming requests for student travel funding

Faculty members should steer interested students, whenever possible, towards presenting at conferences within driving distance

Students should be encouraged to seek out and secure financial support from a range of sources, including, but not limited to the department, the college’s Student Travel Fund, college fundraising activities, and funding or awards offered by conference organizers

Whenever possible, the existing funds should be disbursed equally throughout the academic year

Whenever possible, existing funds should be allocated equitably among students majoring in the Social Sciences, Sciences, Humanities, and Business

Whenever possible, students who have not received prior funding will be given higher priority

The AVPAA will determine, based on the number of submissions, if a Review Board is necessary to assist with the allocation of funds. Members of the Review Board will be selected from current members of the Academic and Professional Affairs Committee. The AVPAA will act as the chair of the Review Board

Notification of deadlines for submission shall be provided by the AVPAA early each semester

Students shall submit a Proposal, approved by a sponsoring faculty member, to the AVPAA that summarizes their research, provides presentation details, and outlines anticipated costs for which they seek assistance. Preference should be given to students whose participation requires written preparation for the conference (i.e. a conference paper, a poster, debate or panel remarks, etc.)

Given the limited funds, the reimbursement may be partial, not full.

Students must submit receipts equal to the funds awarded

Students must submit a written summary about conference participation to the AVPAA within a week of their return