Faculty Affairs 2020 – 2021

Faculty Affairs

The committee will attend to the following issues and report to Council as appropriate:

  • Consider existing campus committees (including task forces and working groups) and develop sensible bodies for ensuring effective shared governance in faculty affairs.
  • Prepare a revised resolution for Council to consider related to amending the Faculty Bylaws of the campus related to faculty misconduct (Part L of existing bylaws), working with interested faculty on Council and off.
  • Review the University’s process for resolving accusations of research misconduct and prepare suggestions for improvement, coordinating effort with the Research Responsibility Committee.
  • Examine NTT representation on Faculty Council, including the benefits and drawbacks of the current model and of other proposed, possibly more proportional representation models.
  • In coordination with the campus standing committee on Non-Tenure Track Faculty and the newly appointed task force assigned to consider this issue, examine the promotion process for NTT faculty, with particular attention to the clarity of guidelines and consistency across campus (i.e., liase with the task force to ensure that Council is aware of developments; assist the task force if requested to do so).
  • Consider the process by which NTT faculty gain emeritus status, examining in particular whether perhaps all faculty (T/TT and NTT) should follow the same procedure.
  • Building on the recent work of the Intercampus Faculty Council (see policy paper of June 18, 2018), work with the Teaching for Learning Center and the Academic Affairs Committee to consider how MU can more effectively evaluate teaching, examining in particular if current procedures misuse student ratings of faculty (e.g., giving them undue weight in the tenure and promotion process, or using survey data in ways that lack validity).
  • In coordination with the Provost’s Office, consider how the tenure and promotion process can improve (i.e., made more efficient, more humane, less burdensome, and, if at all possible, quicker). [Note: This is not an invitation to consider the merits of individual cases.] Pay particular attention to improvements that can be made without amending the University’s Collected Rules and Regulations. If absolutely necessary, suggest amendments to the CRRs. Subsequently, examine how Council can institutionalize a process by which the tenure and promotion application process can be reviewed by faculty, perhaps on a triennial basis. If possible, agree upon a plan with the Provost’s office to guide future review efforts.
  • Examine and produce ideas for benefits to MU faculty, ideally those that would increase the “value” of working at MU but would not cost the university money- e.g., SEC Tuition Exchanges, no-cost membership to the rec center.
  • Consider proposing items in context of findings of COACHE survey results.
  • Examine how deans and department chairs determine who receives “waivers” from the minimum teaching loads set forth at CRR 310.080 (“Regular Faculty Workload Policy”). Review the draft “white paper” produced by the University on this matter (issued on or about May 31, 2016, titled “Policy Guidelines for Instructional Workload Adjustments”) and consider whether the recommendations therein are (a) sensible and (b) being followed.
  • In the event that the Interfaculty Council produces draft reports for the MU Faculty Council to consider (e.g., on Post- Tenure Review), conduct an initial review of any draft and compose a proposed response.

Committee Membership:

Dennis Crouch

Iskander Akhmadullin
Zandra De Araujo
Jella An
Art Jago
Bill Horner