Open discussion area for Faculty Meeting on September 6, 2017

Please add any comments or questions you have regarding topics at the Faculty Meeting on September 6, 2017. You may post anonymously.

Comment cards left at the meeting:


  • Can we hear what is the status of the QEP?
  • Could we get a report on our budget status and projections?

For the faculty website:
Something that might be useful:
A place/location/subheading/etc where we can alert/ask our colleagues to assist us in getting the word out about upcoming programming events that have educational objectives. (e.g. a panel, guest speaker, etc.).
Why: The BUZZ is inadequate.
Thanks for considering this.


  1. Rob Whitnell sent me the following and agreed to my request to post it here:

    I am not able to be at faculty meeting, and I wanted to express one significant concern and make one comment about the proposed revisions in the faculty review and appeal process.

    My concern is the comment DD3 regarding whether faculty asked to meet with FAC can have a faculty advocate. I disagree with the proposed removal of that provision. Because FAC does not meet with every faculty member under review, the very act of FAC requesting a meeting with a specific faculty member places that person on the defensive. The ability to have a faculty advocate at the meeting is then vital, particularly for faculty undergoing one of the pre-tenure reviews. That was certainly my experience when I acted as an advocate for a colleague at such a meeting (under a previous administration). Unless it is necessary to deal with this sentence at faculty meeting now in order to address the emergency issues that led to all the proposed revisions, I hope that the current sentence can remain and this particular issue sent to FAC for further discussion.

    My comment is with respect to the comment DD13 regarding the board role in the appeals process. Unless the by-laws have changed since I was Clerk, I expect that the current paragraph in the handbook is meant to satisfy the provision in the by-laws (Article 9, Section 9.6(I)(ii)) that the Academic Affairs Committee “ensure that due process is followed for all tenure-related actions.” That’s a strong statement about the board’s role in the review process. I think the proposed revisions maintain that role, but perhaps the words “due process” or “whether or not proper procedures were followed” (the current language) could be added somewhere to make that connection to the by-laws.

    • Regarding “the comment DD3 regarding whether faculty asked to meet with FAC can have a faculty advocate” : Rob speaks my mind: I also hope that the current sentence allowing for the presence of an advocate remains in place.