|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 85
Announced Agenda: 5 items
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Malcolm Gillis called to order and chaired the General Faculty Meeting in McMurtry Auditorium of Duncan Hall at 4:00 PM. Alan Chapman served as Parliamentarian. Guests in attendance were college and Student Association presidents.
Speaker Ed Akin presented a motion to suspend the rules with the objective of re-arranging the agenda to hear from visitors and cover pressing items early in the meeting and then move to an executive session at the end of the meeting. He requested unanimous approval to suspend the rules and to replace the regular published agenda with the following agenda:
1. Approval of minutes of September 3, 2003 (Gillis)
2. Election of a new parliamentarian (re-elect Alan Chapman)
3. "State of the University" address (SA co-presidents)
4. Proposed academic calendar for 2004-05, motions from Faculty Council, University Council
5. Proposal to modify Policy 201-01 to include "Professor in the Practice" (Huffer)
6. Degree changes: Art & Art History (Akin)
7. Announcements: a) M.S. in Subsurface Geoscience (Konisky); b) Fred Rudolph's memorial service (Gillis)
8. Continue discussion of Athletics at Rice: A Report to the Faculty Council (Executive Session)
9. Adjournment
On motion duly made and seconded, with no further discussion,
the motion PASSED by unanimous vote.
1. Minutes of September 3, 2003 faculty meeting -
On motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the September 3, 2003 Faculty
Meeting were APPROVED as circulated in advance on the web.
2. Election of a new parliamentarian (re-elect Alan Chapman) - Speaker Akin called for a unanimous vote to reelect Alan Chapman as parliamentarian for a three-year term. The reelection was APPROVED by acclamation.
3. "State of the University" address - Student Association co-presidents, Bryan Debbink and Michael Leggett presented the "State of the University" address, sharing students' issues of concern as follows:
Opening the floor to questions, Bob Curl asked if the students would support adding an extra three days to the end of the semester. Leggett and Debbink answered that having the 2-day break was the most important issue and if starting the semester earlier or adding time at the end of the semester was necessary, they would support this change. Moshe Vardi asked how students felt about splitting the week long break into two shorter breaks of 3 days and 2 days. Debbink believes that students expect to have the week-long break, and it would be very difficult to change this practice.
In regard to online written evaluations, Gene Levy asked how students would feel about having a fully on-line teaching evaluation system, eliminating written in-class evaluations. Debbink felt a better response rate was achieved when students were required to complete evaluations in class.
4. Proposed Academic Calendar for 2004-05, motions from Faculty Council, University Council - Akin, speaking on behalf of Faculty Council, proposed a 2004-05 calendar that did not include a spring recess.
Marty Weiner commented that starting in mid-week, followed by a holiday on Monday was inefficient. Stephen Zeff recalled in the past when classes started on a Thursday, very few students attended through Friday and felt a mid-week starting date, followed by the Martin Luther King holiday, would affect a poor class turnout. Joan Strassman spoke in favor of the two-day spring break, proposed adding it back into the academic calendar for 2004-05, and adding two class days either at the beginning or end of the semester to compensate. Robert Patten stated that the major reason for removing the two-day spring break was due to the need for a full semester of lab sciences in the spring; the two-day break effectively cut out a week of lab science. Stanley Dodds, commented that laboratory courses are limited by both space considerations and class days and suggested that if the 2-day spring break is reinstated, the calendar be extended accordingly in order to maintain the number of class days in the semester. Alex Lichtenstein asked if there was evidence to show that stress levels of students was worse or better in the fall semester. President Gillis stated his belief that stresses are greater in spring, but explained only anecdotal evidence is available in this regard. Deborah Harter supported a 2-day break for students and favored the possibility of extending the semester.
Akin again summarized Faculty Council's motion to approve the original calendar as proposed, which would not include a two-day spring break in academic year 2004-05. Faculty Council addressed this issue for more than a year. They looked at repeated statements from students, compared the number of class days at Rice and other institutions, and believe the educational package Rice students are receiving is being improved by the additional week of labs. Akin reinterated Faculty Council's motion on the floor was automatically moved and seconded and must be amended or accepted.
Further discussion and debate ensued relating to issues of lengthening the semester, beginning the semester earlier or ending it later, the break's effect on lab classes, and details/methods of implementation. Strassmann proposed an amendment to the motion to restore the two-day spring break in the 2004-05 academic calendar and to add two days either at the beginning or the end of the semester to compensate with the implementation of when to add the additional two days delegated to an appropriate administrative University body. After the amendment was seconded, a vote was called and the amendment to the motion PASSED.
Bill Wilson proposed an amendment to the motion to delegate the implementation of adding the two days in the spring semester of AY04-05 to Faculty Council and University Council jointly. The amendment was APPROVED.
The motion to approve the amended, proposed academic calendar for 2004-05 by restoring the 2-day spring break and adding 2 days to the semester, the timing to be decided by Faculty Council and University Council jointly, was voted upon and APPROVED.
5. Proposal to modify Policy 201-01 to include "Professor in the Practice" - Lynn Huffer provided an overview of the proposed changes to Policy 201-01, Faculty Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure. Details of the appointment terms of this new title were circulated in advance of the meeting (see Attachment A). The changes would appear in section "3.d. Untenured positions: non-professorial ranks" and be placed immediately following 3.d.7. This title request originally came to Faculty Council from the administration, specifically through the deans of the Jones Graduate School and the School of Architecture.
Huffer shared Faculty Council's major concerns which center around implementation:
Moshe Vardi brought up the issue of other faculty titles that need clarification, specifically mentioning the title of faculty fellow. Huffer agreed there needed to be more clarity in regard to other titles and advised that another committee would be looking at the specific issues surrounding some of these titles before policy clarification can be achieved. She suggested a specific request should be made to Faculty Council for review of specific titles. Steve Baker asked about guidelines for evaluation and review. Huffer replied that they would be similar to review for other non-tenured positions and that implementation would be left up to the individual schools.
A vote was called and the motion to adopt this policy revision was APPROVED.
6. Degree changes: Art & Art History - Akin referred to the division of the Art and Art History Department and reminded the faculty that modification to degree requirements needs approval of the faculty. He was concerned that the splitting of the department had already been accomplished and announced in the General Announcements without faculty approval. He was further concerned as to the impact this division would have on the faculty within the departments. Faculty Council now recommends approval of splitting the department and approving the two new degrees.
Jim Kinsey counseled against confusing administrative organization within the department with curriculum issues and believed both of the new departments offered a Bachelor of Arts degree, which is the same degree Rice has always offered. Gale Stokes agreed that this was not a curriculum change but only administrative reorganization. Stokes explained that the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee was notified well in advance of the division of the department and advised there was not a problem. Dodds added that the naming of a new major is clearly a curricula issue, but the division of departments is administrative.
Akin reminded that the motion from Faculty Council is that the faculty approve the splitting of the department and their associated degrees. Vardi proposed that the faculty acknowledge the splitting of the departments, and he made a motion to amend the wording to "acknowledge" instead of "approve." After the motion was seconded, a vote on the amendment PASSED. With no further discussion, the faculty APPROVED the amended motion.
7. Announcements
Jordon Konisky announced a name change only for the masters' program in Energy Exploration to Subsurface Geosciences.
President Gillis announced the memorial service for Fred Rudolph to be held November 12 at 3:00 in Keck Hall.
8. Continue discussion of Athletics at Rice: A Report to the Faculty Council (Executive Session)
Marjorie Corcoran was introduced as the new chair of the Faculty Council Subcommittee on Athletics. She announced that in response to the Faculty Council report, the board was moving ahead with a very thorough study and has hired a consulting firm, McKinsey & Co., who are in the process of gathering data and developing a detailed report. Melissa Kean is acting as the liason between McKinsey and campus, helping gather the data. The process is moving ahead very rapidly and a report is expected sometime this spring. Chandler Davidson, last year's chair of the Faculty Council Subcommittee on Athletics, provided further comments relating to the Faculty Council report and athletics.
President Gillis opened the floor for additional discussion on the report. This discussion included the parameters of the Board's study, quality of academic programs, policies and guidelines for athletes, available COFHE and other national data, honor code violations, graduation rate of athletes, and cost issues for athletics.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:02.
Respectively submitted,
Janis Cain
Secretary to the Faculty
Attachment A
Proposed change in Policy 201-01 approved by unanimous vote
of Faculty Council on November 3, 2003 for consideration by the general faculty
on November 11. Council will also prepare a list of concerns about the implementation
of this proposed change for distribution before that meeting. -- Ed Akin, Speaker
3.d.8. Professor in the Practice
Occasionally Rice has the need to staff certain courses or teaching programs
that are not easily staffed by tenure-track faculty but which are important
to the university. A new non-tenure track, non-tenure eligible faculty appointment
is established to fill specific and important pragmatic instructional needs
of the university. These faculty positions are titled in the style "Professor
in the Practice of (Field)." The number of such positions will be limited.
These positions are akin conceptually to clinical academic appointments made
in law, medical, and other professional schools. These appointments are intended
for individuals who, by virtue of their credentials and extensive practical
experience, bring distinctive insight and skill to teaching in various educational
programs.
From time to time, at the request of a school, the President may appoint a person
to the title of "Professor in the Practice of (Field)," such as, for
example, Professor in the Practice of Architecture. These appointments are made
for limited periods of up to three years and may be renewed in increments of
up to three years without limitation on total service, but do not carry tenure
and are not tenure eligible. These individuals participate in classroom and
other teaching but do not serve as Chair of thesis or dissertation committees
or as principal investigators for research support.
The appointment letter for those hired with this title must include a description
of their teaching duties and other responsibilities. It should also describe
the procedures to be used for their annual review and evaluation.
These faculty practitioners are entitled to attend faculty meetings. Those designated
as half-time appointments or greater, with two or more years in this position
at Rice University, may vote on matters arising therein except those pertaining
to tenure or exclusively to research. Existing voting faculty transferring to
such a practitioner rank retain the above voting rights without the two-year
delay.