REGULAR MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
NOVEMBER 6, 1995
MINUTES
Senators excused were: Barbara Curry, Neil Houser, Edward Kerner,
John Kraft, Jerome Lewis, Ajay Manrai,
Stephanie Oberle, Betty Paulanka, Mary
Richards, David Roselle, Tuncay Saydam,
Roland Smith, William Stanley, Carolyn
Thoroughgood
Senators absent were: Brian Ackerman, Steven Helmling, Christine
Heyrman, Bill Lawson, James Magee, Duane
Milne, Shawn Phillips, Wendy Samter
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved as submitted.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Senator Hildebrandt asked if President Roselle's remarks were to be
published. The Secretary of the Senate noted that the semi-annual
meeting of the Faculty is not part of the proceedings of the Faculty
Senate and that, therefore, President Roselle's remarks were not
part of the minutes of the Senate session held on the same day.
The minutes of the October 2, 1995 Senate meeting were then
approved as written.
III. REMARKS BY UNIVERSITY PROVOST SCHIAVELLI
The Provost had no formal remarks to be made.
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Hall announced that an open hearing was scheduled by
the Committee on Undergraduate Studies on the "Granting of
Permanent Status to the Major in Foreign Languages and
Literatures," to be held on Thursday, November 16, 1995, at 4:00
p.m. in 201 McDowell Hall.
V. OLD BUSINESS - None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Request from the Committee on Committees and Nominations
for Senate confirmation of committee appointments.
The following slate of nominees was approved:
Mary Carroll Member, Library Committee
Mir Islam Member, Diversity and Affirmative
Action
Lesa Griffiths Member, Student and Faculty Honors
Elizabeth Perse Member, Undergraduate Studies
Jerome Brown Member, Student Life
Virginia Redmond Member, Library Committee
Barbara Viera Member, Student and Faculty Honors
James Richards Member, Graduate Studies
Avron Abraham Member, Undergraduate Studies
B. Recommendation from the Committee on Faculty Welfare and
Privileges regarding a proposed policy on Academic Conflicts
of Interest. The resolution read as follows:
WHEREAS, it is essential that conflicts of interest
be avoided in situations where family
members of faculty or persons with
whom faculty members share
consensual amorous relationships
participate in the University as students
or as members themselves of the
faculty or administration, and
WHEREAS, these conflictual situations are likely to
arise in an epoch where such
relationships are frequent, be it
therefore
RESOLVED, that the University Faculty Senate
approve and recommend the adoption
of the attached policy ("Academic
Conflicts of Interest"), as forwarded by
the Committee on Faculty Welfare and
Privileges, and be it further
RESOLVED, that, upon approval of the appropriate
officers of administration, the attached
policy ("Academic Conflicts of
Interest") be included in the Faculty
Handbook on page III-57, under Section
III, "Personnel Policies for Faculty," as
a new Subsection X.1, with the current
X.1 becoming X.2 and so on.
Senator Bellamy asked if there had been a sufficient number
of problems which have arisen to warrant such a formal
policy. President Hall referred to Professor McInnis,
Chairperson of the Committee on Faculty Welfare and
Privileges, to comment. Professor McInnis assured the Senate
that there were indeed so many situations in which such
conflicts might arise, particularly with children and spouses of
faculty enrolling in courses, that potential conflicts were
sometimes unavoidable. The policy was intended to protect
the faculty member more than anything else.
When asked if there was a specific problem that prompted the
policy, Professor McInnis said that there had been no
complaints, but that Vice Provost Andersen had suggested to
the Committee that such a policy be written, since across the
country most institutions are writing such policies and
including them in their faculty handbooks.
Vice Provost Andersen remarked that the policy statement
before the Faculty Senate was some version of what was in
the National AAUP Handbook. In her opinion, an important
point is to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, that
students may perceive the presence of a spouse or child in the
class as a potential conflict. She confirmed that there had
been problems in the past.
Senator Gottfredson stated that it was not clear to her how
the policy would address such perceptions and asked whether
the Committee had discussed privacy issues, for example, the
question of the potential damage which might ensue from a
requirement that a gay relationship be revealed. She was
assured that the Committee did discuss the problem to some
degree. It was the Committee's opinion that the issue of
fairness would override such issues of privacy. Professor
McInnis stated that most situations that arise would involve
open family relationships.
It was remarked that the policy, as written, would place a
faculty member in violation of official University policy if such
a relationship were not revealed. The suggestion was made
that a simple public declaration that a student was a son or
daughter would suffice to remove the conflict. Vice Provost
Andersen said that it was her interpretation that the policy
states that, if you have that relationship with a student, you
should not be supervising them in class or out-of-class
instruction. If that course is the student's only option for
degree completion, an alternative method of grading must be
found. Therefore, simple declarations would be prohibited and
all potential conflicts of that sort would require alternative
grading procedures. Vice Provost Andersen stated that she
did not take part in the Committee's deliberations, and that
questions of privacy should probably be referred to them.
She further stated that the language is literally out of the
National AAUP policy document.
Senator Bonner suggested that the word "should" does not
carry the force of "shall" or "must" and, as such, could be
viewed as advice to the faculty on how to handle potentially
sensitive situations.
Speaking for the Committee on Faculty Welfare and Privileges,
Professor McInnis stated that the document was brought to
the Faculty Senate because there are an increasing number of
married faculty entering the work force, many of the old
nepotism rules have been dropped, and that the rest of the
faculty should be protected from cozy relationships between
married faculty members in terms of employment. The policy
is such that married couples could not vote on each other's
promotion and so on within a department.
Senator Hildebrandt suggested an amendment to the wording
of the policy to state that both real and apparent conflicts of
interest should be avoided. Debate on the amendment then
centered on the advisability of making such a change, the
interpretation of the word "should," and the problems of
maintaining objectivity in grading.
After further discussion, the Faculty Senate voted to return
the report to the Committee on Faculty Welfare and Privileges
for further input.
C. Recommendation from the Committee on Faculty Welfare and
Privileges amending the Faculty Handbook relative to
"Qualifications for Sabbatical Leave."
The question was raised concerning the policy attributed to
the Administration, that credit earned toward a sabbatical
leave did not accumulate until the September following the
leave period. After some discussion, Vice Provost Andersen
commented that the faculty rules, as adopted by the Faculty
Senate, make that stipulation and that it was not a matter of
administrative interpretation. After further discussion, the
question was called. The following resolution was passed by
an overwhelming vote:
WHEREAS, it is standard practice that faculty be
eligible to apply for a sabbatical every
seventh year, and
WHEREAS, the administration now discounts the
Spring semester after a faculty member
returns from a Fall semester sabbatical,
be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the Faculty Handbook, Section III,
"Personnel Policies for Faculty,"
Subsection 6, "Sabbatical Leave,"
paragraph d., page III-40, be amended
as follows: [New wording is in bold
type and deleted material is in
brackets.]
The credit toward a sabbatical leave
does not begin to accumulate until the
beginning of the next appointment
semester [year] after returning from a
sabbatical leave.
D. Introduction of New Business
The President of the Faculty Senate called for any
further new business. Senator Bellamy rose to ask if
there was any truth to the rumor that plans were
underway to move the Faculty Senate offices to Hullihen
Hall. On being informed that the move was indeed being
planned, Senator Bellamy, after commenting on the
previous discussion of avoiding the appearance of
conflict of interest, and in light of the symbolic
importance of the move with regard to the independence
of the Faculty Senate, requested that the following
resolution be placed on the agenda of the December
Faculty Senate meeting:
WHEREAS, the University Faculty Senate is
empowered to act in place of the
Faculty, and
WHEREAS, in order to do this, it must
maintain its clear independence
from the University
Administration, both in fact and in
perception, be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate requests,
and strongly recommends, that
the Faculty Senate Office
continue to be located in a
building that does not also house
the central administration.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Angell
Secretary
University Faculty Senate
TA/rg
Attachment: Academic Conflicts of Interest