Faculty Senate Meeting s5

Minutes

Faculty Senate Meeting September 9, 2011

Announcements Sr. Gail welcomed the faculty to the new academic year and made several announcements. Senators present included Joe Polizzi, Phil Jenkins, Trish Arter, Tammy Brown, Frank DeMatteo, Joanne Christaldi, Lori Swantek, Kielty Turner, Alex Vari, Mary Ann Zimmer, and Monica Perri-Galvao, Rick Hoffenberg, Linda Partridge, Sam Olfano, James Eckler and Annette Fisher. Alternates present included Bill Conlogue, Andy Dattel, Packiaraj Arumugham, Erin Sadlack, and Charles Truitt. Sr. Gail introduced this year’s Executive Committee: Ed O’Brien, Vice-President and President-elect, Annette Fisher, Linda Partridge, Alex Vari, Joanne Christaldi, and Frank DeMatteo.

The October meeting of the Faculty Senate will also be in the Comerford, and will continue the introduction of new faculty.

Minutes There were two changes made to the minutes of May 6, 2011 before they were approved. Joanne Christaldi’s name was added as present. The Handbook Committee’s proposal concerning Qualifications for Appointment to Rank was slightly reworded The proposed change was the elimination of the section: “As is common among terminal degree-granting institutions, recipients of Marywood doctoral and MFA degrees will not be considered for full-time employment or pro rata positions. An exception may be make if an individual has had a successful experience of some duration in another academic or professional institution, after receiving the degree.”.…. A motion was made and seconded to accept the policy as written with the elimination of the section noted above. The motion passed …

The minutes of May 6th were approved with these two changes. Committees

Sr. Gail reviewed the Faculty Senate Committees briefly and noted the need for a volunteer for the Concerns Committee. Kathy Healey-Karabell volunteered.

Rank and Tenure Proposal The proposal for a change in the wording of the criteria for promotion to associate professor and for tenure was discussed at length. The Rank and Tenure Committee is suggesting the following: For Tenure: have demonstrated significant involvement in public service, and the University community's academic, cultural, administrative, and student affairs.

For promotion to Associate Professor: have given evidence of performing in a collegial manner and of continued professional growth and value to the University by declaring and submitting documentation of significant achievement in all of the criteria below….teaching, ongoing service to the University department, ongoing service to one’s discipline field, ongoing service to the College or the University and/or academic service to the larger community. For promotion to Full Professor have given evidence of performing in a collegial manner and of continued professional growth and value to the University by declaring and submitting documentation of significant achievement in all of the criteria below….teaching, ongoing service to the University department, ongoing service to ones discipline field, ongoing service to the College or the University and academic service to the larger community

There was considerable discussion of the criteria of community service. Fields of study seem to differ in the availability of opportunities for public and community service. Faculty were reminded that “double-dipping”, i.e., counting something twice in two different categories would not constitute meeting the criteria. Faculty were also reminded that changes ordinarily don’t affect people “in the pipeline.” Criteria for promotion and tenure are those in effect at the time a faculty member begins work at the University. The following questions were raised.

Does service to the community need to be related to one’s discipline field? Are there not service dimensions to scholarship and academic research itself? What is the difference between public service and academic service?

Shouldn’t service be tied to Marywood’s mission, rather than to one’s discipline field?

In terms of the “record of service to the community, what do we want the [successful applicant} to look like?”

In light of the above questions, and the possibility that rewording might help to clarify these questions, the Senators agreed that the proposal should be sent back to the Rank and Tenure Committee. Introduction of New Faculty Members

During the last part of the meeting, mentors introduced some of the new faculty. The rest of the new faculty will be introduced at the Oct. 7th meeting.

The meeting concluded at 4:30 with refreshments in SC 125.